Sushi Das is a columnist and feature writer for The Age, where she has been for 10 years in various roles including Victorian news editor, transport editor, letters editor and state politics reporter.
Posted on 01/10/2006 1:49:22 AM PST by nickcarraway
SUSHI DAS discovers what men think about feminism.
'FEMINISM has turned women into selfish, spoiled, spiteful, powerless victims," shrieked the email. "Men are talking, can't you hear it? Marriage rates are down, birthrates are down, men are using women for their pleasure and then leaving them."
If it was only one of a handful of emails I received, I might not have given it much thought. But there were many more. "I do not think it's men or boys that need reforming. I think women are the main instigators of hate against one half of the population," wrote another man.
Then there was this: "I have healthy relationships with women and always have protected sex to avoid entrapment … why should I risk losing everything I own and having my children taken away from me?"
And this: "The modern guy is not looking for the 'services' past generations did, they often just want a nice person to share their life with, rather than someone who is going to be climbing corporate ladders, getting pregnant when she chooses and then assuming complete control of a child's life. That is not to say they are not supportive of women's careers and goals."
The emails were a response to a challenge I posed to men on this page a couple of weeks ago. Specifically, I asked them to engage in debates relating to "feminist issues" and show they understood that equality, women's rights, the work/life imbalance, the declining birthrate, sexual politics and relationships generally are important to everybody, not just women.
I received, a tsunami of emails. Many were considered arguments. A significant number were the bitter outpourings of men hurt by women. Some elucidated the frustrations of men who couldn't find Ms Right. Sadly, many were simply vitriolic or abusive.
In the hundreds of emails, anger appeared to be the underlying emotion because the writers believed the pendulum had swung too far in favour of women. There were some common threads: men were angry that women's needs took priority over theirs; they felt men constituted the majority of the unemployed, the homeless, the victims of industrial accidents and suicides, that men's health received less funding than women's, and that boys' education was poor. In relationships, they felt some women were "not very nice to men" and were often too selfish to consider their needs. These concerns are real,
but how many can really be blamed on feminism?
Essentially, men raised three broad concerns over why they did not engage in the debate on feminist issues. First, they were scared of being howled down by aggressive feminists who dismissed their views. Second, they felt they were victims too, but women didn't listen to them. Third, they were confused about what women really wanted and what constituted appropriate behaviour.
On the first issue, I agree, some women are dismissive of men's views simply because they are men. Men who speak out, wrote one man, are "smashed upon the rocks of indignation" and this made it "a very, very scary debate to engage with". Another said: "Opting out of an argument in which we cannot hope to be allowed an equal voice let alone a fair outcome is a perfectly rational response."
My response? Get over it. If you're a man and you have an opinion, speak out. Put your case. It will stand or fall on its merit. Stop being scared. There are plenty of women willing to listen. And if you get howled down, get up and say it again. That's how women got their voices heard in the 1970s.
On the issue of men as victims, some argued women too are violent, that men have few rights on abortion, that female teachers get off more lightly when they sexually abuse male students, that men are vilified as pedophiles, that affirmative action is discriminatory, that women frequently win the custody battle. Clearly these concerns require attention. Perhaps it is governments that are not listening to men, rather than women.
Finally, some men were unsure of their role in society. This is complex, and women must recognise this. But men should also let common decency be their guide to appropriate behaviour. Being a decent human being shouldn't be that hard.
Equality is a prerequisite for development. When the shouting from our respective corners is over, perhaps resentment from both sides will melt.
Many emails I received were a cry from the heart from men. But it's not just about women listening to their words, it's about men taking action to improve their own lives. This means speaking out, whatever the consequences — engaging in the debate on equality or feminism or whatever it is called these days.
With that in mind, I'll leave the last words to a man: "Damned if we do, damned if we don't. We need to speak though. We do not want our daughters growing up stunted by arguments or situations that could have been campaigned away. Equally, our sons require education. But how do we do this with integrity? That's the challenge for all involved."
Sushi Das is a columnist and feature writer for The Age, where she has been for 10 years in various roles including Victorian news editor, transport editor, letters editor and state politics reporter.
Also the fact that intersexual relations are dictated by deeply engrained behaviours based on evolution of the human race, is also ignored by feminists.
The fact is that men and women need each other and are incomplete without each other.
Materialism, the objectifying of men, has lead to a disolution of the family. Men do not need to live with materialistic , selfish women. Men just take what the want or can and move on. Men have become hunters and gathers in their relationships with women, rather than agrarian cultivators of single relationships
And now feminists complain?
Increasingly American men marry women from a traditional society such as Japan, Korea or Saudi Arabia. Perhaps there is a message there.
Carrot, I'm telling you that the next 20 years, it will the be women of India who reign in feminism, and bring semblance to this nuisance.
It's the free market at work!
The author of this piece is of Indian origin, atleast as far as the name 'Das' goes...
My response? I like my job, my house, and my car. I don't need a harassment suit. I think I'll keep my opions to myself.
I knew it was a woman who wrote this with out even looking at the name
Hey, she's kinda cute!!
Oops, was that sexist?? Probably a stoning offense at Berzerkly or Hahvahd. ;-)
www.mailorderbrides.com/
www.japanfriends.com
http://www.loveme.com/
http://www.romancium.com/
The liberal, "feminists" have lost the day. They simply created an alternative market where good men are hard to find.
I'm sorry, first of all, I haven't a clue what point the author was making and secondly, I can't follow this thread at all....maybe it is a "guy thing"? LOL
BTW, you might want to examine the finer details of IMBRA. It is designed to counteract marriage agencies.
Just because I know at about 10x as many decent women who were or are married to jerks as decent men who were or are married to jerks, does that make it so? Personally, I only know one sweet, decent man who is divorced because his wife is a jerk, but I'm sure they are many out there. The 3 remaining divorced men I know or work with are jerks, but that's just my experience. Conversely, I know at least 2 dozen women who have divorced their jerks--selfish men who cheated, lied, drank and many also stiffed their kids financially.
I wouldn't dream of painting all divorced men with the same brush. That would be stupid. I love men, but I don't love jerks.
As always, and will forever be, some men are jerks, some women are jerks. Jerks are mean and selfish, and that's why we call them jerks. If their spouses can afford to, they divorce the jerks. No one should have to live with a jerk.
And that's my theory on jerks.
She asked men to write in to engage in "debate" about "feminist issues," to "prove" their enlightenment. It didn't go very well; one general theme was that men felt they couldn't honestly engage on the issue without the PC police hauling them in.
She showed her commitment to honest discourse by mocking the responses and responders. She then ponders why men aren't winning to participate in a process they consider to be rigged, and concludes they should be "men" and stand up to it.
She makes the point she's trying to refute...if men decide they don't want to engage in intellectual slap fights with feminists, there's nothing she can do to stop them.
Funny she says that, because that's the way she describes the responses she received are exact mirrors of how the majority of individuals (men who haven't been turned into eunuchs by PC-ism and women who enjoy being women) see feminists' rantings.
The Phantom FReeper's definition of a feminist: a woman who's bitter about not having her "needs" met, even though her poor attitude is generally the cause of the problem (and I'm female, so no one better call me a chauvinist).
Me; I love the Women's Movement... especially when I'm walking behind them.
Well the "men" they asked must be the Woody Allen type, wormy, whining, effeminate wimps.
Who cares if a feminist howles you down, I barely note they exist and allow them to howl like alley cats until they look like complete fools. One of my favorite responses to feminists is "Thats cool for you, I just need a old fashioned girl, but good luck with your deal too" talk about infuriating.
Victims? Victims? Victims of what? That certain women wouldn't allow them to be men? Thats not the womens choice. There are plenty of women who want real take charge men, you just better know you have one when you get married.
Men who worry about what women want tend to end up looking like complete wimps. Not only are women confused about what they want, so generally are men.
The problem with feminism is that these girls party through college, get a job and spend 5 or 6 years moving up the ladder or accumulating stuff while going to bars to meet people. Usually by the time a girl hits her 30's the career is not as cool as they thought it would be and most of the men are married.
Men can be 40 and marry girls from 20 to 50 women who are 35 to 40 have a much smaller group to choose from.
America has the most unhappy women on earth while they are the most affluent and spoiled.
The common sense advice is "don't talk to them."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.