IanIronwood

You noticed that too? I noted in another post on another thread that feminism was all about equality . . . when it suited the women who were pushing it. When it came to actual gender equality, intellectually speaking they backed off quite a bit, most of them. Political, economic and social equality are great. But the moment that female control over sexuality started to be questioned, it was deemed "a private matter" between couples that didn't warrant further discussion (except for a few brave souls like Camille Paglia) unless the woman in the relationship was at a disadvantage. If the man was at a disadvantage, then that was ok.

Even when the issue is occupational, the feminists are very, very vocal on "equal pay for equal work" and tossing out factoids about how, on average, women make less than men, on average. But when it comes to, say, the most dangerous professions, which are nearly exclusively worked by men, I don't hear anyone from the feminist camp screaming about parity there. For example, true economic equality would imply that an equal number of women should be working in occupations where their chances of getting maimed or killed rise dramatically.

So feminism, since about 1967 or so, has been far more interested in gaining economic and social advantage for women than it has establishing true equality for the sexes.

The pendulum has already swung. And it's not going to be pretty.

Feminism arose as a result of two major technological factors: the rise of women working in industry (Rosie the Riveter, on) and the availability of reliable and safe birth control, which placed reproduction almost entirely in the hands of the female in our culture. When women completely controlled both their reproductive rights and were able to support themselves without the assistance of men, feminism was a logical and inevitable development. Women didn't need men for security any more, and women didn't have to worry about getting pregnant unless they wanted to. Two important, revolutionary developments.

Only they didn't stop there: with the rise of female empowerment, more women entering higher education and seeking out professional degrees in the 1960s-70s (without having to worry about getting their pretty little butts drafted), the liberalization of divorce laws across the US allowed women to dump their husbands if they were unhappy and move on, without too much fear of either stigma ("the gay divorcee") or financial ruin. By the 80s, there were a significant minority of young women who were entering professional careers and who saw men and children as obstacles to their success. And if they did end up with a husband, it was easy enough to get rid of him if he was an impediment to that.

Which gave us skyrocketing divorce rates, a generation of divorce-scarred children, and a generation of young women with a profound sense of entitlement. In the 80s and 90s, women wanted to make their big pile of cash at the IPO just like men did, and a lot of them did. The number of high-powered female corporate executives is massively larger now than thirty years ago, when there were virtually none. You've come a long way, baby.

BUT . . . their success was not without casualties. Men, in particular. Not only did men see the traditional rules of behavior they had grown up with get tossed out the window by women as "atavistic" and "oppressive" and "chauvinistic" (even when they were not), and then get blindsided by divorce, rejection, and judgement. Unequal custody laws made life for divorced fathers hell, and convinced their sons that marriage was just a bad idea. While the number of sexually-available women was also much higher, the number who were interested in starting a family after college was abysmally low. Why have kids, ruin their bodies, and trash their career over a mere MAN?

And the men in question, we were told consistently that we were responsible for all of the world's ills, the abuses of capitalism, the abuses of the system, the exploitation of women and children, colonialism, you name it, men were the bad guys. There was no way that men could respond in kind, partly because we were pretty shell-shocked by then and partly because we had no clue how to handle the evolving social issues with our traditional masculine ways. Indeed, "masculine" became a kind of code-word for "wrong" or "violent" or "oppressive". Men were encouraged -- urged! -- to give up their alpha-like tendencies and embrace their sensitive, feminine sides which would make men and women finally get along. Or so feminist theory said.

Only it didn't happen that way. Because while women now controlled their reproductive destinies and their own security -- traditionally things that men had been responsible for, particularly security -- they also controlled access to sex. Until about 1995 or so. Sure, a single guy could pick up a single woman pretty easily, but when it came to relationships women still maintained their traditional control of sex within that relationship, and strongly defended it. If a woman, particularly a successful career woman, condescended to marry a man she found acceptable, exercising her prerogatives in the bedroom stood side-by-side with controlling their own finances and their reproductive cycles.

In the 80s, married couples were more or less equal in the eyes of the law and in society, but inside the bedroom women still determined the couple's sex-life and guarded that prerogative jealously. And most men had to swallow whatever pride they had and just accept it because cheating was out of the question (AIDS, herpes) and it was the only game in town. Between that and the denigration of the alpha-male in mainstream culture, men had very, very little recourse save an expensive divorce attorney.

But then around 1995, the Internet happened in a big way, and things shifted once again. Thanks to the growing presence of internet porn and the networking capability that allowed men to flirt with women all over the world, women lost control of the married sex life.

Combined with the 1990's generation's profound fear of marriage, marriage rates were falling perceptively. And within the marriages that did come about, the women could no longer command the erotic attention of their husbands because they were suddenly in competition not just with every pornstar he saw, but with the idea of that clandestine affairs and prostitution were becoming easier and easier to carry out with the internet. Women, particularly feminist, fought back, claiming that internet porn was "exploitative" and "ruined lives" and "disrespected women" -- all perfectly legitimate arguments that could be supported with factoids.

But their real problem wasn't that young women were being "exploited". Their real problem was that they, as wives, had lost the control over the sex life in their marriage, or as perspective wives (or life partners, whatever) they faced an explosion of competition not just from the other girls at the college or job site, but from every other single woman in the world who had an internet connection. They felt entitled not just to higher education and equal protection, but protection from sexual competition for the attention of the men in their lives. So the feminist fought (excuse the expression) "balls out" to get internet porn eliminated, regulated, whatever. And they failed miserably.

Because the men in 1995 were fed up. There were plenty of bright, attractive, ambitious women out there, but if you were 25 in 1995 and a woman, getting married was the last thing on your mind. Getting ahead in your career was the focus, hitting that internet IPO, drinking beer with your workmates and occasionally hooking up, but not marriage. The guys in the 1990s were also so enchanted with the possibilities of internet porn and video games, not to mention supremely gun-shy about matrimony, so why bother? And if you did, and you caught your hubby whackin' on the internet to some bimbo, well, you could kick him to the curb with two phone calls and a visit to your attorney's office.

That's about the time we started hearing "where have all the good men gone?" from women's magazines. And they really meant it this time. Men didn't want to get married anymore. They didn't want to have kids in an uncertain relationship. They certainly didn't want to commit to the average college-educated woman. And the issue of who made more money, which had been a token of pride amongst the feminists of the 1980s-90s, actually made men less likely to commit. Women were puzzled, as they started thinking more and more seriously about children as they aged and enjoyed their success -- why wouldn't a "good man" want a woman who made her own money, could look after herself, and even owned her own home?

And the answer was, to be concise, because men were tired of getting roughed up in a game they didn't understand for mediocre rewards and no promise for improvement. In the 1980s and the 1990s marriage, when it happened, usually happened to effect maximum benefit for the woman and minimum benefit for the man. By 1995 women felt so entitled to having both career and family that they naturally expected it all to happen on schedule. Only they forgot that the men in their lives, the ones who they dated while waiting for "Mr. Right" to arrive, had feelings and resentments and an increasingly objective attitude towards women. Women hadn't given much thought towards men and their interests and concerns. Heck, they barely gave it any thought at all.

But the men . . . the men were beginning to use the internet, compare notes, share their anger and resentment with each other, communicate with each other, and start pushing for their interests the same way feminists pushed for women's interests back in the 1960s and 1970s. Remember the spate of books in the late 80s and early 90s celebrating the "men's movement"? (I sure did -- and I heard it ridiculed by every woman who saw them). Iron John, of course, Fire in the Belly, natch, King, Warrior, Magician, Lover, , Why Men Are The Way They Are, The Hazards of Being Male, et. al. Men were getting fed up with the status quo.

Feminists called it a "backlash", but the truth was it was as much an attempt to re-claim a lost sense of control and masculinity as it was an attempt to counter the extreme effects of feminism. If the books were touchy-feely enough and didn't advocate, say, actually getting pissed off at the women who were pissing us off, the feminists even gave some grudging approval (even as they snorted in disgust, "It isn't enough!")

Fifteen years later, the excrement is hitting the fan.

Remember all of those entitled, highly-educated women who got successful careers in the 1990s, sacrificing their husbands (if they had them) and their best child-bearing years of their lives to pursue careers? Well, they all realized that they were almost 40 and had maybe a dozen eggs left, and their chances of being a mother were literally ticking away with every period.

So the last few years has seen a sudden interest of 30-something women with solid careers hitting the electronic dating circuit, taking singles cruises, even placing Craig's List ads to meet someone -- anyone with sperm, at this point -- because while they were making embarrassing piles of cash and not dating the men who they were not dating were now far more interested in internet porn, fantasy football, and video games than they were with the prospect of marrying a 30-something chick with an approaching expiration date.

At this stage in life most of them have been through one divorce already and are wary of commitments longer-term than a cell phone contract. And they just don't give a damn about her career (in which she is more likely more successful and makes more money than he), her love of a good book, or who's ahead on Dancing With The Stars. The reek of desperation, entitlement, and self-indulgence is just too much. When your sperm is good until your 70, being a 35 year old man just beginning to be successful means waiting a few years to marry a 25 year old hottie who would rather have kids than climb the corporate ladder is just a better idea.

So now women have gained control over their security, but lost control over the marital sex life. And while they maintain control over their negative fertility (birth control is easy and effective), they are quietly losing control over their positive fertility. Sure, some are using sperm banks or one-night-stands or other methods of getting around that, but the fact is that the vast majority of heterosexual women still want Prince Charming, the romantic, handsome, secure man of their dreams. Problem is, Prince Charming has very little desire to be with them.

So now we have a whole generation of highly successful, driven women who have managed to take advantage of feminism's bounty, and have inadvertently screwed themselves out of even the possibility of finding a decent husband and father. Since most single men see their interests as revolving around recreation, leisure, sex and sports, women have very little to offer. So an entire generation of smart, ambitious women are now out of the gene pool. Thank you, feminism.


See just how far equality goes?

Enchantment

Sure is better than never having had that equality - never having the same opportunities or choices about your own life or your own self/person that others did.

A person, man or woman, should be able to choose the path they want to follow in their life - and that is what it is all about - having the ability to make a choice and have a voice in your own life.

Being able to choose to vote.
Being able to choose to drive.
Being able to choose an education.
Being able to choose a career.
Being able to choose a mate.
Being able to choose when you share yourself with your mate.
Being able to choose parenthood.
Being able to choose.

And, of course, every choice you make has consequences. One must be prepared for the consequences of one's actions. Perhaps some are too rash in not considering the consequences of what they choose?

But, to me, having the same ability as everyone else to make a choice about your life and how you will lead it, is what it is about, whether it's called feminism or men going their own way or something else.

And, I will be the first to admit, that a person's fulfillment in life comes from within themself. I can freely admit that you could put me in chains, restrict my freedom and my choices, but you could not restrict that which is inside myself - you can restrict my body and my movements, but you cannot restrict my mind and thoughts if I don't let you.

So, now I'm going back to my desk at my job that I got because I had an opportunity to be educated and had the privilege of being able to drive here today in a place where I am free to make choices, and I will be thankful that I have those choices in my life because there are many, many people in this world who do not.

God Bless.

__________________

Enter these enchanted woods, You who dare. ~ George Meredith

that_girl

I think most/every American can say that.

__________________

omega

Heck yeah I'd rather have reproductive rights and voting rights and rights to education etc., even if it means a harder time finding a mate (according to you). It worked out just fine for me: I got the education, I vote, and I married the love of my life. Maybe there are women who can't find the right man now, but I can't imagine that girls who were married off by their fathers had much better love lives....

IanIronwood

While I appreciate your sentiment, I think you missed the point of that remark. I wasn't seeking to demonstrate that "equality" for women was a bad thing. I was trying to point out that the "equality" that is supposedly the hallmark of the movement completely falls apart when it comes to including men, as men, in the equation.

In other words, feminism is all about equality for women . . . but not equality for men. It's a serious subject, one which we are often ridiculed for pursuing ("You're MEN! You get everything you want! What do YOU have to complain about!?!") because when we try to pursue our interests with the same determination as feminists, suddenly "equality" isn't nearly as important anymore. It's "equality" that there should be more women CEOs, engineers, and doctors. But it's not important that there aren't enough women deep sea fisherwomen, firewomen, lumberjacks and mine workers.

So it's not just about "equal rights", or feminism would push for equality when it came to the inequities suffered by men in our society, instead of continuously boosting the interests of women regardless of the consequences. At this point feminism seems little more than a justification for female entitlement, and most men not only don't take it seriously as an intellectual force, but view it as general negative in our society, despite its past successes.

Was that a little more clear?

IanIronwood

I'm not saying that life was better before feminism, for men or women. What I am saying is that feminism, past a certain point, stopped being about equality and began being about female entitlement. And further, due to this shift in focus it created some profound problems that will take generations to overcome. Not the least of which is that men, as men, are not taken seriously or accorded equity in the running debate about how our society evolves. And not the least of which is that men, as men, have very little respect for feminism as an intellectual and social force.

that_girl

__________________

Trenton

Love this quote and couldn't agree more with every word.

I only re-post it with my short commentary because I would like it to be available twice.

Therealbrighteyes

Feminism is about equality for ALL, not for one group or another. Any so called feminist who moans about equal rights/pay but then doesn't want women on the front lines, isn't a feminist in my book. I have said it before and I will say it again, if a woman wants to be a firefighter and is able to carry 70 lbs of gear while running up 5 flights of stairs, then she SHOULD earn the same as her male counterparts. If she however, works a desk job at the fire station, not a chance.
I think society as a whole (this generation) is entitled. Everything is instant, nobody saves for anything, everything is disposable, communication is Twitter and nobody knows worth a damn what feminism is all about.....least of all the idiot girls who were sucking face pretending to be something they were not.....in order to turn their boyfriends on.

Therealbrighteyes

Men aren't taken seriously? How?
You are right about men not respecting feminists though. I guess you can't win 'em all though. Somehow I will live.

Trenton

Well, we want entitlements so why is anyone surprised or annoyed when people attain them? Take a moment and think of all the entitlements you expect and that even older generations also expect.

Clean water, good sewer system, meds, retirement, pension, social security, welfare, work hours, weekends off, driver's license, access to food, signs, and the list goes on and on and on.

I've always thought disparity among entitlements in America was more due to classism than anything else.

Trenton

They don't have a right to get laid whenever they want. Duh.

IanIronwood

Oh, dear. Let me count the ways.

1) Fathers and husbands are the nearly universal butt of every sitcom since the late 1960s. Just about every father or husband on TV is portrayed as stupid, stubborn, ignorant, unreasonable, incompetent, incapable, and in some cases borderline retarded. Sure, it's funny. The first time. But when the two iconic popular culture fathers in America continue to be Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin, seeing straight, married fathers who can manage to get through a 22 minute episode without making an ass of themselves just gets painful.

2) "Men's Issues" are regularly ridiculed and not taken seriously by either popular media or women in general. Everyone wants to go after "deadbeat dads" for child support; no one wants to bring equity to the child custody laws or divorce laws so that mother and father are considered equally.

3) The aforementioned disparity between men and women in the workplace as regards dangerous positions is almost always relegated to the back burner. Yes, anyone can do whatever job that they are capable of, in theory. But how many female coal miners do you see in Western Virginia and Kentucky compared to the number of female welfare recipients who "can't find a job" there when the mines are hiring? The only time men seem to be honored for the work they do in our society is when they die a horrible death while on the job, or contract some nasty disease from work-related exposure.

4) Even when men try to organize to pursue issues of interest based on their gender, they are ridiculed and demeaned by our society. I'm not even close to a Christian, but the flack the Promise Keepers took after they formed was appalling. The Million Man March was assailed as sexist on a number of fronts, merely because it addressed men, not men and women. The moment a "men's group" forms, there seem to be cries of discrimination and exclusion. That happened to me, locally, two years ago when I put one together. We had two meetings before women started insisting on coming, despite our men-only policy. When one was so vocal that we were violating her rights to be included, the group voted to disband instead. Not because we were being a$$holes. But because the point of the exercise was to have a forum apart from women's voices, where our own could be heard.

5) Men are not accorded the same respect as women when it comes to our sexual rights -- male rape is not considered seriously in society or under the law, female molestation of an underaged male is prosecuted far, far less than the reverse, and there is virtually no punishment for a false rape accusation.


There's five. I have plenty more.

IanIronwood

Either do women. Make sure you remind all the HD wives on the board of that fact when their husbands reject them.

Beyond that, yes, male sexuality is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to most men. You could even consider it a core issue. As such, it should be treated with the same respect as women's core issues and not subjected to ridicule or disrespect by women.

Enchantment

My post was about both men and women, not just women. Alas I didn't think I had written that whole soliloquy about only women. Shows you how well I communicate.

Seriously, the ironic thing is that the feminist movement in the beginning was about equal rights for both men and women. The initial movement seems to have been somewhat distorted by the more radical fringes, which isn't an unknown thing to happen in movements. Something has to start the pendulum swinging and sometimes it takes a rather ugly, brute force to do it.

I wonder what would have happened if the movement would have been named differently and wouldn't have had such outliers headlining it. We'll never know now. I am not even sure how much of a 'movement' it is anymore. Is the civil rights movement still going on?

And I like your comment about deep-sea fisherman and such. Well, I never aspired to be one of those growing up about as far away from the ocean as there is. (But I sure did want to be an adventurer and archaeologist like Indiana Jones.) But, that merely reflects the choices people are given. Plenty of men don't want to be deep-sea fishermen either (maybe I should be politically correct and call them fisherpersons?), and you certainly don't have to be one if you don't want.

But, if you want to be one, man or woman, then you need to be sure that you can qualify for the job, and the opportunity should be promoted equally between both. Unfortunately, we don't promote these kinds of opportunities to both sexes equally. For example, there's still a divide in our education about promoting opportunities more equally amongst boys and girls. (Do we really equally promote boys going in to what has been more traditional female 'jobs' or staying home with their kids? Do we really equally promote girls going in to what have been more traditional male 'jobs' like being a deep-sea fisherman or an engineer?)

(Don't get me started on the educational system, because I have real problems with it as it concerns what I have lived through with my two boys. There needs to be a men's movement in how boys are being educated. But not to bash men, sometimes you aren't that well organized and don't step forward when you feel uncomfortable with the subject - like with those involving kids - so any movement will likely have to come from a bunch of moms like me who are starting to make a stink about the inequities we see in our son's educational opportunities and experiences. I am tired of hearing about how my boys don't fit into the 'idealized' student model. Nope, sorry, they've got some characteristics that are quite different than that and they are penalized for it because they can't sit still, don't vocalize as well, are more disruptive, etc.)

And firewomen, at least where I live, have to meet the same qualifications as the firemen simply because the job requires it. There are plenty of men who don't make the cut as well. There will always be differences in strength and ability not just between the sexes, but within the sexes. The point is having the opportunity. No one says that you don't get the job if you don't qualify, but first you have to have the opportunity - but remember in the beginning of the feminist movement even qualified individuals would often unfairly be turned away.

I certainly don't deny that there are issues for men. I see it all too often - especially in my divorced friends. But, so many of the men have just as often rolled over and given up. You need to get your rhetorical stick and start stirring them Ian.

One man I worked with just got divorced. His wife divorced him - they have 4 kids. They are sharing the financial responsibility - she had to go back to work and get a job and the child support is determined based upon both of them working. They had to sell their big house and both basically live in something a lot, lot less than what they had before. But, when it came to custodial issues, he just rolled over and didn't even put up a fight for more equitable time with his kids even though his wife actually initially pushed for 50/50 custody.

I asked him why he didn't agree to that and he said that he didn't think it was fair to his kids to be away from their mom that much (especially his girls), but then he admitted that frankly he didn't want to have to be responsible for them that much. It made him uncomfortable to have to be handling all of the daily, touchy stuff with the kids like his wife had always done and he wanted to have more free time. Hmmm....you have to be willing to carry the load if you're given the opportunity. Maybe we should have been promoting to this guy that having a nurturing, 'feminime' side for his kids (or at least a level of personal responsibility) was the right thing to do so he could have handled taking care of his own kids? All right, I couldn't help saying that - just teasing - maybe - kinda - am I?

There's still a long way to go, baby. But, as with anything, nothing happens unless people's eyes are first opened to the issues.

__________________

Enter these enchanted woods, You who dare. ~ George Meredith