Jump to content
IGNORED

War on Men


quiningseven

Recommended Posts

I think the "war on men" has more to do with the fact that men who want women to bow down to them just because they're men are having a hard time "finding a wife." It's like they're surprised women don't get all flustered by their presence.

To me, this whole thing is code for "why can't all women be trophy wives instead of thinking for themselves and stuff."

The reality is that a lot of men don't *want* trophy wives, my husband included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, this whole thing is code for "why can't all women be trophy wives instead of thinking for themselves and stuff."

The reality is that a lot of men don't *want* trophy wives, my husband included.

.... but modest trophy wives. Just like Callista Gingrich. Oh, wait... they're supposed to have wavy hair so as to highlight their sparkly eyes.... Oh, wait.... they're supposed to cover their hair... Wait, no; covering is works righteous, so don't do that ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been trying to find the Pew study she (sorry about the He initially) mentions. I have enough distrust in her honesty and intellectual capacity that I'd like to see the study instead of trusting it says what she says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the author of three books on the American family and its intersection with pop culture, I’ve spent thirteen years examining social agendas as they pertain to sex, parenting, and gender roles. During this time, I’ve spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women. And in doing so, I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/ ... z2DLpNpbvW

Hundreds, if not thousands of men and women do not a valid sample size make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought us wimmenz were supposed to be the emotional ones that get hurt feelings all the time. These "manly" men that want to take care of the poor wittle helpless women sure to seem to get their feelings hurt pretty easily when it turns out that we women are capable of taking care of ourselves. :roll: If I acted as simpering and helpless as this woman seems to believe I should, it would get on my husband's last nerve. Part of the reason my husband even wanted to go out with me was because I was willing and able to do repair work on my own car and had no problem doing so by his side and getting just as dirty and greasy as he did. He liked that I was independent and not afraid of hard work. My dad always made sure I knew how to do basic home and auto repairs so that I wouldn't have to rely on a man to do them for me. I am so thankful that these are the men in my life instead of these cry-baby man-children that can't be bothered to take responsibility for their own faults and instead feel the need to blame the women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality is that a lot of men don't *want* trophy wives, my husband included.

He would have if the ebil feminists hadn't gotten to him first!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

There are some times when I like to get all gussied up in a nice dress, hairdo, and makeup. Mr. Bloo likes it when I look like that. He says I look pretty. However, he has also said it when I'm in a t shirt and shorts, pajamas, and naked. Point is, I'm a woman (hopefully an attractive one) regardless, and he loves me.

More seriously, I think there would be quite a few more issues in our marriage if I didn't work, mostly due to lack of income. We have discussed the possibility of me staying home with any future kids, but it may not be feasible. Then again, Mr. Bloo is in a relatively low paying female dominated field (he's a teacher), so he's probably not the manly man this group wants anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phyllis Schafly's niece.

Ahh. That makes sense. Dominionists and patriarchists (to me) will never accept the ability of women to do as "Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but backwards and in high heels." It's got to be troubling that there are now more women in the workforce than men.

I can't remember if this was posted on the ezBoard forum. "The Atlantic" ran an interesting article a couple of years ago.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what I find truly stupid about this point? It's that they act as if feminism were a brand new thing, a virus that has taken hold of women in the past 10 years and has poisoned us all.

A 30 year old man has always lived in a world where women have careers. He has always lived in a world where Roe v. Wade was law. He has never lived in a world that resembles a 50s sitcom. There is no reason for a young man to not accept the way society currently is, as he has grown up with women as they are. He had to have been taught by others that women are supposed to be some other way.

That's actually a really good point. The more time goes on the weirder it is for men to be like that. And I guess I haven't realised just how long it has been, and how I'm now in my mid-20s and always felt I grew up in a very much post-feminist world (though obviously still with issues, like this misogyny, but you know what i mean) and the same is true of men in their early 30s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

any time I hear or read the phrase "war on _____ (fill in the blank)" all I can think is, "oh, good grief! If you want to be at war so badly, go join a real one."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, brilliant, now she's using the whole controversy and her follow-up article to advertise her book - "How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace with Marriage". I wonder what sort of pearls of wisdom THAT'S going to have. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Atlantic" ran an interesting article a couple of years ago.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

The article posted was very interesting but missed the mark. The whole premise is based on gender-selection preferences through IVF and no other hypothesis than "all patriarchy all over the world is changing" were considered. Maybe IVF is really expensive and only reflects the preferences of a select group and not all of society. Maybe the reason for the female selection is that girls are less likely to have a host of genetic diseases. Maybe there's a big overlap between people who have reason to be concerned about their kids having genetic diseases and people who would want to spend lots of money and select girl fetuses. The author should have done more research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe my math is off, but doesn't her statistics mean that 63% of women don't think that marriage is one of the most important things to them? That is a large number of women who aren't primarily focused on marriage.

Says who? It seems to me that most men who are competitive end up with similar wives.

Her article makes men seem like giant, whiny assholes who can't handle a woman doing anything better than them. It is odd to me that people like this writer have very negative stereotypes of men and yet they don't understand that their views about men are actually insulting.

Too right, Debrand! And these people think feminists are man haters.

My first boyfriend was a bit of a sexist twat, although obviously he didn't come with a sign on his head advertising the fact. I was never sure how much of this was a part of his individual personality and how much of it was due to his upbringing. Mark wasn't born until 1977, but his family were what I suppose we would describe as "fundie-lite" Catholic. I only met his family a couple of times as they lived hundreds and miles away in East Yorkshire, and we were in Nottingham. However, on the occasions I did meet his mum, it was obvious she disliked me. I assumed the reasons for this were pretty much the same as the ones I outlined in the "where do you imagine your place would be in a fundie world" thread. The main one being because I wasn't her idea of a sweet little Catholic girl, despite the fact that her precious son had rejected the faith when he was 14 years old! She believed women shouldn't work outside the home, and the only reason she had a job was because Mark's dad had got sick and couldn't support the family himself. She was always telling him I was too feisty and independent for him. Initially, Mark said this was what he liked about me, as all his previous girlfriends had been quiet and unassuming, which bored him. But later on in the relationship, he started labelling these traits as me being a bitch, or "too smart" and that it wasn't "right" for a woman to be of equal intelligence to her male partner. (I know, I should've spotted the red flag). Anyway, the relationship finally ended when I found out that he was still with his "ex", and the only reason he had managed to hide it from me for two years was because she was away studying at Derby University. That was horrible but I knew I was well shot of him. And it certainly explained why his mum hated me, although I hadn't been aware that I was the "other woman". Now I'm glad I never married into that family, because she would've been the MIL from hell!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one am breathlessly waiting here for the hordes of men desperate for a wife who will allow them to bear 100% of the household's financial burden.

*crickets*

As my mother once said a couple of decades ago, "People nowadays go crazy over men who'll change a diaper once in a while, but nobody's recognizing the fact that working wives are taking a huge financial burden off their husbands' backs. It gets dressed up as 'women wanting to be independent,' but these gals are really doing their husbands an enormous favor."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one am breathlessly waiting here for the hordes of men desperate for a wife who will allow them to bear 100% of the household's financial burden.

*crickets*

As my mother once said a couple of decades ago, "People nowadays go crazy over men who'll change a diaper once in a while, but nobody's recognizing the fact that working wives are taking a huge financial burden off their husbands' backs. It gets dressed up as 'women wanting to be independent,' but these gals are really doing their husbands an enormous favor."

Now, I will say, I have heard of men who want stay at home wives and are willing to shoulder 100% of the financial burden, but rarely do I hear of men (especially these so-called marriageable, traditional men) who are good about shouldering 100% of the cooking and cleaning if they lose their job and their wives HAVE to work. To me, that's the real issue with these so-called marriageable men who can't find a women willing to play second fiddle. It's this idea that if anything does befall hubby's employment, I could end up doing HIS job as well as MINE? So, how is this a beneficial arrangement? The guy gets to be in charge because he's the man, but if he can't perform his manly job, then I have to step in and still do my women's work.

It is interesting that while even as families saw a huge increase in working mothers which eased husbands' financial burden, men seemed slower about taking up household chores. During the 70's and 80's, we heard of the "double shift" where working women still had to come home to do the "second shift" of housework. Men are now taking up more of slack, but it seems there's a generation of people that reject the notion of men entering the home domain even as women continue to enter the work domain.

I've seen families where the husband loses his job and the wife becomes the ONLY breadwinner, and yet the wife still ends up doing much of the housework, some even employing paid help. And now, we got fundies and conservatives decrying a "War on Men" because women are shouldering the financial burden off their husbands without always seeing a fair reduction in their household chores. So, why aren't these conservatives decrying the men who refuse to be a man and get better jobs? Or take up toilet scrubbing until they can find employment? Why aren't conservatives acknowledging how the men have it easier now since they have an extra income stream coming in and still someone to do the housework? If anything, it seems the working mother phenomenon can also be pinned on those so-called manly men who can't seem to provide enough, thereby making working mothers a common reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

Fuck you, Suzanne Venker! Just....fuck you....you miserable misogynistic bitch!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I will say, I have heard of men who want stay at home wives and are willing to shoulder 100% of the financial burden, but rarely do I hear of men (especially these so-called marriageable, traditional men) who are good about shouldering 100% of the cooking and cleaning if they lose their job and their wives HAVE to work. To me, that's the real issue with these so-called marriageable men who can't find a women willing to play second fiddle. It's this idea that if anything does befall hubby's employment, I could end up doing HIS job as well as MINE? So, how is this a beneficial arrangement? The guy gets to be in charge because he's the man, but if he can't perform his manly job, then I have to step in and still do my women's work.

It is interesting that while even as families saw a huge increase in working mothers which eased husbands' financial burden, men seemed slower about taking up household chores. During the 70's and 80's, we heard of the "double shift" where working women still had to come home to do the "second shift" of housework. Men are now taking up more of slack, but it seems there's a generation of people that reject the notion of men entering the home domain even as women continue to enter the work domain.

I've seen families where the husband loses his job and the wife becomes the ONLY breadwinner, and yet the wife still ends up doing much of the housework, some even employing paid help. And now, we got fundies and conservatives decrying a "War on Men" because women are shouldering the financial burden off their husbands without always seeing a fair reduction in their household chores. So, why aren't these conservatives decrying the men who refuse to be a man and get better jobs? Or take up toilet scrubbing until they can find employment? Why aren't conservatives acknowledging how the men have it easier now since they have an extra income stream coming in and still someone to do the housework? If anything, it seems the working mother phenomenon can also be pinned on those so-called manly men who can't seem to provide enough, thereby making working mothers a common reality.

The "double shift" thing is really interesting. Housework hours are studied all the time and the discrepancy is narrowing but women still seem to do several more hours a week, even in various different Western countries (and non-Western). Obviously, these are in couples where paid working hours are equal or more or less equal.

I hope it shifts in my generation. Most of the boys I know are able to do their own chores and expect a 50-50 shift. I'm sure there are ones who aren't like that though - but they are gross with everyone, like before they find a live-in girlfriend, they are the housemate who always leaves dishes in the sink.

I think these things might subtly change once people have kids though, the wife does more.

The "double shift" in terms of not housework but working full-time and doing most of the child care is not recognised in family law when property is divided up, which is an unfortunate omission. I realise this is different in the US (I am in Australia, where alimony is basically non-existent), but a wife who works full-time as a housewife and carer of kids will probably get the same proportion of an asset division as a wife who works full-time outside the home and also does the childcare on weekends, school holidays etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.