“The End of Men” by Hanna Rosin – review by Evan Marc Katz
Pages: 1 2
I know, I’m a little late to the game in reviewing Hanna Rosin’s “The End of Men”, which came out on September 11, 2012. That’s what happens when your day job is coaching smart, strong, successful women and your night job is being a good husband and father. And so it goes.
As you may know, I’m a big reader, but tend to only read books for pleasure. If they feel too much like homework, I’m not going to bother. Which is generally why I have a lot of trouble reading most relationship books. Too close to home. But when it comes to accessible, scientifically researched, mainstream nonfiction, I’m a sucker. I’ve read most of the seminal books on behavioral economics like “Predictably Irrational”, “Nudge”, “How We Decide” and “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. And I really enjoy books that talk about larger societal issues revolving around gender and relationships: “Marry Him” by Lori Gottlieb, “Committed” by Elizabeth Gilbert, “Unhooked Generation” by Jillian Straus. Which brings me to “The End of Men”.
Women have become more traditionally masculine. Men haven’t become more traditionally feminine.
Rosin starts with some unassailable premises: women are gaining ground in education and the workplace, gender roles are fluid, and both genders are confused about what this means.
So is the author, I would suggest.
“Men could move more quickly into new roles now open to them – college graduate, nurse, teacher, full-time father – but for some reason, they hesitate…Men do a tiny bit more housework and child care than they did 40 years ago, while women do vastly more paid work. The working mother is now the norm. The stay at home father is still a front page anomaly”.
This is true. But Rosin’s built-in suggestion to men is a bit one-sided: the answer to these dilemmas is for men to change. Rosin points out that “women have become more masculine in their traits – assertive, independent, willing to take a stand. Men have not come towards the center, seeing themselves as tender or gentle.”
Yes, and that’s my point. Women have become more traditionally masculine. Men haven’t become more traditionally feminine. And so we find ourselves at an impasse – one that we’ve broached many times on this blog. Women’s answer to men: you need to change. Men’s reply to women: we like the way we are! Accept us.
Screaming back and forth at each other – as we often do – doesn’t serve a purpose. In a perfect world, we’ll try to meet in the middle. But Rosin spends a lot more time reflecting – on how men are falling behind than she does telling women how to adjust to the new world order. To be fair, this new world order, with women at the top, is the central premise of the book. And, to be fair, Rosin does a good job weaving a narrative based on anecdotes and statistics that support her case. Except they don’t entirely do so.
For example, “Among college graduates 25-39, women make up 45.9%.” Women earn 60% of masters, half of all law and medical degrees, and 44% of all business degrees.”
I find this information to be amazing. Inspiring. Heartwarming. Groundbreaking. Yet Rosin is arguing that these statistics represent not just the rise of women but the “end of men”.
Huh?
 |
Why He Disappeared is the smart, strong, successful woman's guide to understanding men. If you want to learn how men think, and rediscover how to have meaningful relationships - all from a man's point of view - click here to learn Why He Disappeared. |
Do You Want to Attract the Partner of Your Dreams?
If so, sign up for my free dating and relationship newsletter and receive my free eBook, The 5 Massive Mistakes You're Making In Your Love Life - And How to Turn Them Around Instantly. Simple and effective advice to jumpstart your love life.
177 Comments »Filed Under Understanding Men
DinaStrange 1
And here is where the biology kicks in. Most of women still want a man who they can look up to. Who still makes more than they do. And who will take them on those european vacations.
Julia 2
eh, this all seems a little out of touch to me. Talking about women making $200k to $300k a year needing men who make more. What we are talking about is an extreme minority, probably less than 1% of working women. So as for the rest of us, people who will likely need two incomes to have a family in this world, finding a man who make about what we make or a bit more or less is important. I will never be able to carry a starving artist as a husband but if he makes about what I do, I am going to need someone who is willing to be an actual partner and help in child raising and taking care of the home. Women have achieved a lot but MOST of those women and men achieving undergrad and graduate degrees will never make the kind of money that you are writing about here. So to me all of this seems null.
Michelle 3
The BEST scenario is women are taking on masculine traits like assertiveness, independence & willing to take a stand. Unfortunately, it seems like the reality is women are more aggresssive, fiercely indepedent (discount men’s role, purpose & function) and overbearing. Unfortunatey as well, women have accepted the notion they can have it all, act like a man, have men be attracted to them, a demanding career and raise children. We know that’s not reality as well. And I know you see this first hand Evan as women age and get more realistic/mature about what they are really built for and desiring: to have babies in a secure safe environment (ie. a partner) so they can raise those babies.
Just another book about how men should be more like women.
Frimmel 4
Most of the studies saying the women do more around the house typically only count traditional female homemaker tasks and do not include the things men typically do like auto repair and other maintenance and lawn work or remodeling. We had a water softener as a kid and I don’t ever remember my Mom toting the 50lb bags of salt for instance as one example. Men also tend to spend more hours at paid employment so this gap between ‘who’s doing all the work’ is not as wide as gender feminists would like folks to believe.
Most stay at home dads end up that way out of necessity or because they can/do already work from home. Women as far as I can tell do not seek/date/marry men who expect to be stay at home husbands. As an experiment you could throw up a few reasonably attractive photos with the same generic profiles one male and one female expressing a desire to get married and become a homemaker. Any wagers on which profile would get the fewest messages?
I’ve said if before here and I’ll say it again, feminism freed women from their traditional sex role. It did not free men.
Ruby 5
Why is it that when a woman does act more assertively and independently, she’s considered overly aggressive, over-bearing, and the old standard, “bitchy”? The best scenario is MEN feeling like it’s okay to take on “feminine” traits, but those that have the most power are reluctant to relinquish that power, or to take on the traits of those who have less.
Women making 300k/year? First-world problems I wouldn’t mind having. Sigh.
Evan Marc Katz 6
Aw, Ruby. I never would have guessed after all these years of reading my blog that you would make the mistake of telling me that the answer to the world’s problems is for men to change. I stand corrected.
Most men don’t like women who are that assertive, independent, and opinionated.
You’re pretty much saying that we SHOULD.
Good luck with that.
Ruby 7
EMK #6
I’m not sure what you mean by women acting “that” assertively, etc. How much assertiveness and independence is acceptable? In any case, men have changed. So have women. Would I like to see more change? Yes, but it happens slowly. Both the women and men of my parents’ generation are noticeably different from my peers today. Change, however slowly it happens, is inevitable.
Evan Marc Katz 8
Change is inevitable. Just notice that in #5, you said that MEN were the ones who had to do it. In fact, WOMEN who are assertive and independent need to start valuing men with more feminine qualities. As of yet, most of them don’t.
This is why I have a job.
Michelle 9
I’d like to clarify something, I am an assertive and independent woman, and I have NO problems dating and relating to men (I’m in a relationship now with a great guy, who enjoys being the man and loves that I speak my mind and don’t NEED him, but want him). What I am not is AGGRESSIVE and have an attitude of no need of men or desire him to be a hairy woman.
There is more than one intepretation of power. For some reason, there are people who believe being a woman in her femininity is weak, a victim & being taking advange of–with NO power. The truth is, a women who understands femininity understands how much power she wields.
I also agree with Frimmel, why don’t the traditionally male tasks done around the house count?
Ruby 10
EMK #8
What I meant was that it’s still more acceptable for women to take on masculine traits than vice verse. Even so, women still get chastised when they do. I agree, we should value the positive characteristics we find in each other, rather than simply label them too masculine or too feminine.
But I’d also have to agree with Julia (#2), for the vast majority of us who aren’t in the upper echelons of wealth, we’ll just be looking for a man who makes a decent income and wants an equal relationship.
Evan Marc Katz 11
The really good news, then, Ruby, is that there are just as many men who make decent incomes and want equal relationships as women.
Unless you’re going to intimate that there are a lot more qualified women out there.
I would think that the 50 million married couples out there would indicate that men want to get married. And I would think that the fact that men still make more than women would indicate that many of them make decent incomes.
Problem solved.
JB 12
Oh Evan women DO value men with more feminine qualities those are the gay guys they occasionally “hang out” with to go shopping and complain about ……what else?………..MEN
On a daily basis I really wish this blog could change the way women thought but like someone above me said in the first post no matter how much they earn or how alpha they are they want someone higher than them or at least equal. What they don’t understand (especially if they’re not physically attractive) is that they can’t attract those men. Those men have no interest in alpha women and can care less how much money a woman makes. The thing I have to deal with on daily basis at my age (50) is not only how much a woman makes but how much their ex husband MADE when they were married. I have to be “better” than that!
Karmic Equation 13
@Michelle 9
“The truth is, a women who understands femininity understands how much power she wields.”
1000% agreed.
I think that’s the problem with most “smart, strong, successful” women struggling to find a happy relationship. They’ve been conditioned to believe that masculine powers are the “true” powers. They’re not wrong, because their success in the business world IS based on having strong masculine powers. Dialing that down and “glorying” in their femininity in their relationships lives may seem like a betrayal of that part of themselves they consider admirable and worthy of respect.
To give up control, when you like to be in control is difficult. But if they can swallow their egos, and be outcome-oriented (a masculine trait, btw) instead of process-oriented (a feminine trait), they might fare better in finding or being successful in a relationship.
I used to play in a lot of volleyball tournaments before I was married. I continued to do so after I was married. People would ask if I could play and I would say yes when I knew my hubby and I didn’t have any plans. Then I’d just tell my husband I was going to play vb on X day, etc. However I noticed my hubby would get all quiet and sullen when I told him this. Finally instead of of TELLING him I was playing, I decided to ASK him if he would mind if I played. He ALWAYS said “No problem, sure.” — and he STOPPED being quiet and sullen and instead became moderately interested in whether my team won or not when I came home.
I think most women here would chafe at “asking” their husband for permission to do something they knew they had a right to do. But I was more interested in playing vb and keeping him in a good mood than asserting my independence. So I always thought of my “asking” as a smart way to get what I wanted, instead of seeing it as some sort of negative on me, or him, or the relationship. However, if he ever had said “No” — that might have elicited some assertiveness on my part, but he never did. He just wanted to have a say. It would have been petty of me not to give that to him.
Yuri 14
I would rather my intellectual abilities not be used as evidence for how women are rising and men are falling. That is just ludicrous. In an equal society, people succeed and fail on their own accord, not based on their gender.
And just because women are acquiring more masculine qualities does not mean men should acquire more feminine qualities. Since when did our emotions become shades of black and white?
I don’t go around telling men or women that they are pretentious or loud and that they should change that. If you don’t like your environment, change your environment or change yourself. You can’t ask people to change for you. That’s selfish and irrational. You can’t survive by refusing to adapt to adversity, if one should call it that.
Lia 15
@ Michelle # 9
What I understood from that post (and yours as well) is that I don’t need to be “weak” or pretend to be small and needy to be feminine but I do need to be open and vulnerable.
“I’d like to clarify something,I am an assertive and independent woman and I have No problem dating and relating to men.”
I think that I finally got the difference between being independent and being emotionally unavailable (thanks to Some other guy’s post #20 under “Why Does Evan Coach Smart Strong, Successful Women?”).
I thought that somehow being strong and independent was a personality trait that I was expected to hide or get rid of, but that is not it. It is good to be strong (thank goodness) but guarded and distrustful, not so much.
Michelle # 9 “The truth is a woman who understands femininity understands how much power she wields.”
YES!!!!!
RW 16
@Julia #2
Yes, 100% agreed.
@Frimmel
>> feminism freed women from their traditional sex role. It did not free men
Yes, you are correct. But do men want to be freed? Isn’t that what this is all about? You could also argue that women do not want them to be freed (while wishing to be free themselves) but that’s a different ball of wax.
@Karmic #13
Great story and true for so many of us. You are absolutely correct: asking instead of telling makes all the difference. It’s not really asking and both parties probably know that. It’s just a simple matter of showing consideration for your partner.
I think this desire to “have a say” is gender neutral though. I haven’t been married that long (almost 9 months) and for various reasons it took us a while to begin living together so we’re still growing into each other. The other day he called me at lunch to say that a friend wanted to go out for drinks after work and did we have any plans that day? He knew we didn’t at that point and that he didn’t need my permission but it was a very sweet thing to do and I was very appreciative.
This is one of the biggest lessons I’m learning about marriage. Sometimes it’s more important to make your partner happy than to be right. Sometimes there’s a cost to your pride but it’s often worth it. Whatever other lessons there are to be learned as women trying to navigate our way through relationships, I think this one is gender neutral.
Lia 17
@ Karmic Equation # 13
Thank you for sharing that. The way I see it, you were not really asking permission, but rather you seemed to simply be acknowledging that he was your partner and that his input was of value. It may have been worded as if you were asking permission but to me seemed as though you were, in some small way, including him in your decision instead of leaving him out entirely.
Cat5 18
Karmic Equation @ 13 – Did your husband ever ask you for permission to do things he had a right to do?
Lucy 19
I do not understand why marrying a high school English teacher would be a step down from marrying a brain surgeon because I don’t think career success, or salary is a measurement of person’s worth. Actually that’s a bit unfair. I think I’m simply coming at it from a slightly different angle.
I wonder how the author’s observations would apply in a less success-driven society; or why she is declaring the ‘end of men’ but only talking about one cultural context? Sure maybe you might see it as the beginning of the end if men are largely valued only for their success but I’m a bit edgy about that.
Rose 20
I can see both points of view, although have not read the book.
The problem as I see it is if the woman marries down so is the higher wage earner and she then becomes the stay at home Mum, how does that work when they are then trying to live on the lower wage earners income?
Or if she goes back to work according to the author the men in question do not want to take on the main househusband role. so how does that work?
And if they both work, the author then appears to be saying that doesn’t work either, well not very well for the woman as she is doing just as much outside work as the man and more in the house and more childcare So how does that work? haha well I can see that would be the best option for the man.
How many women really want to have children to go back to a full time career and not actually be there for their children?
Would love to here thoughts on what the best option is.
Another problem is disconnection from our family support network now people move away from their families.
I believe divorce rate has gone up hasn’t it?And second and third time around even less chance of lasting.
Not good news. something isn’t working.
Rose 21
hear/not here.
Evan Marc Katz 22
@Cat5 – I routinely ask my wife permission for things I have a right to do. It’s called “being considerate”.
Cat5 23
@Evan – I was married for 15 years, and we both routinely consulted the other about many things – not only because it is considerate, but it was essential from a monetary standpoint. When we were first married we were juggling big time, because he was recovering from brain surgery and unable to work for awhile, and I was in graduate school and working. We set-up parameters for certain types and amounts of purchases, and if you wanted to go outside those parameters, it required a conclave.
The reason I asked Karmic Equation the question in #18, was she only mentioned what she did. I was curious if he did also.
Karmic Equation 24
@Cat5
No and yes
In all honesty, I can’t recall a single time he did anything that required my permission or even consideration. On weekends, he was rarely gone for more than a few hours, and that was to go to the gym. In contrast, my vb tournaments were all day affairs, I’d leave at 730am and sometimes not get home until 10pm.
However, he did occasionally ask me for permission no man would typically ask his wife…to go to a night club with his friends. And I always gave him permission, even though sometimes I think he would have preferred that I said no. LOL
The back story is that my ex-hubby is a good looking dude, a boy-next-door, “9″. His friends, in contrast, while good people, were at best 6′s and that’s being generous. Before my husband met me he would go to night clubs frequently with his buds and girls would flock to his chick-magnet-self, and if he wasn’t that into the girl he would say something like “Hey, I’d like you to meet my friend, [name]” and hand the girl(s) off to his friends.
Once he met me, he stopped going to the clubs and for about 4 years or so after, his friends fended for themselves at the clubs, with apparently very little luck. So finally they caved and asked him to ask me to let him go to the club with them. So he asked and I said yeah, go have fun, you need to get out of the house. I had complete trust and faith in him. As well, I knew the girls in the clubs wouldn’t measure up to me
I’m sure most of them were hotter, but none could surpass my total package.
Anyway, the first time he did this, the first thing he said when he got home was, “I am so glad I’m married to you and out of the dating rat-race. You wouldn’t believe the desperate, gold-digging, sleazy women out there!”
Needless to say, whenever he asked (about once every 6 months), I always said yes. His meeting other “available” women didn’t make him regret his marriage, but instead validated his judgment (that he picked a great woman–me!) and that being married was a whole lot better than being single.
Jackie Holness 25
I don’t even like the title of the book…it’s inflammatory…which is probably the point I guess…
Rose 26
So what happened @cat5 are you still with him?
Rose 27
Apologies @cat5, just noticed you said ex.
Feel sad to hear that.
What happened?
Rose 28
Oh dear I need some coffee. That question was to Karmic Equation, my brain is obviously still sleeping.
Nicole 29
Evan
As you point out, the quibble here is the fact that, despite women are getting more masculine, men haven’t become more traditionally feminine, thus the equation “masculine + masculine” does not work!
However, I’ve seen that even if women accept to date beta males with less earning power, these guys may still feel emasculated. So even though the woman accepts the more easygoing guy, this same guy may be well attracted to her, but in the end he cannot cope with her being more successful.
This observation comes from a very “normal” place. I am young professional earning less than 50k. I just like working (like I did when I was at school), I like learning new things and being rewarded for my time and dedication to work (even though I am not a workaholic). In the past, I dated guys (often older than me) who earned less, deliberately following the principle of choosing a more easy going beta partner who would be supportive. That was hell! These guys supported me in theory, but in practice they sabotaged me, either due to insecurity (they were scared that me moving jobs or having a better position) could menace the relationship or, being themselves not ambitious, they saw my desire to have a better paid and more rewarding position as something foolish.
Another point is that it’s true to say women are more masculine, but it is also true that our ancestors were not necessarily that vulnerable. Many women had to be assertive, practical leaders, since oftentimes their husbands were working far from home. The men was the away from home bread feeder, the woman was the stay at home manager of the household and the person in charge of proper spend of the money (earned by the husband), as well as responsible for the daily upbringing of the children. In that sense women were oftentimes strong and tough women.
Helen 30
Evan, while I, like Jackie 25, find the book’s title inflammatory, I don’t see that the parts you quoted mean that Rosin is telling men to change. She is being observational, not prescriptive. She isn’t saying that men SHOULD take these new traditionally-female occupations or become more tender; she’s saying that she doesn’t see this happening.
If she had said that men should do these things, then yes, I would agree with you. (Maybe she did say that in the book, but not in the parts you quoted.) Just because we change, it doesn’t mean that we have a right to tell others they must change to accommodate us.
Karmic Equation 31
@Lia 17
You’re giving me too much credit, I’m afraid. I truly didn’t think I needed to ask as I knew our social schedule, which was non-existent. There was absolutely no reason why he should be angry or upset, because if I had stayed home instead of going to my tournaments, we would have been in separate rooms in the house as we didn’t always like the same TV shows and if I’m not watching TV, I’m on the computer or reading a book. It was better for me to be out exercising and socializing and indulging my competitiveness than to stay at home “watching him watch tv”. In my mind, I was making a compromise to ask him for the sake of a win-win outcome (me happy and him happy).
@RW 16
I agree, “having a say” is gender neutral, but being vested in the “outcome” is a more masculine trait; and being more vested in the “process” is a more feminine trait. That’s why guys don’t buy books about how to “relate/communicate” (processes) with women. They buy books for outcomes (e.g., picking up women/getting them to bed). (Not sure, but I think I read this from “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus).
@Cat5
I wouldn’t consider anything that affects finances significantly, a “right to do” by either party. For example, if I wanted the whole house re-carpeted, he would of course be consulted and have to be on board 100%. But if we’re not hurting for cash (and we’re both working) and I want to buy a $20 hardcover book, then I don’t need for him to have a say. I’m using this example, because we did have a disagreement over this. He actually said “What book is worth $20? (He’s not a book lover like me). Why are you spending all MY money on this nonsense.” As I said, we were both working. So my smart, shut-him-up-for-good comeback was said very sweetly, “So if I’m spending all YOUR money, then all the money in our savings must be MY money, right?”
He never questioned my purchases again. (I’m not extravagant, so he never should have questioned me in the first place.)
Rose 32
I have actually observed a lot more feminine energy men online and out there in real life in general over the years. More so with the younger generation of men being passive in nature. Now I do not know if that is just to do with women becoming more masculine in their energy and behavior, or if it is also to do with female hormones in the water due to female birth control and traces from plastics containers in processed food/ drinks/cosmetic containers for shampoo etc.
Correlation is not a cause.
In real life and online I have come across three types of men.
Men who’s energy is coming at me and towards me in a good way which feels great and just feels wonderful to be around. And I feel safe with. And approach me with genuine enthusiasm and interest about me as a person rather than surface level social chit chat, or gossip about other people.
Men who’s energy is coming at me and towards me who tell me all about themselves and their relationships, who are usually complaining about women and past relationships with some real horror stories. These men do not feel good to be around deep inside. On the surface they are full of life and energy almost to the point of being manic, busy busy busy. And appear to want me to be their therapist and want help.I feel open on the surface to this but deep inside something doesn’t sit right and I feel scared to be in their company for long and certainly not one to one.
And then men who’s energy is very passive an inward energy which feels feminine to me who appear shy and the womens energy goes towards them. Usually appear to be nice natured. But appear to be reluctant to take the lead with women.
And on an observational level, there does appear to be a decline in the first group.
And appear to be more go getting masculine energy women out there.
What anyone draws from this I do not know.
Draw your own conclusions.
All I know is I like men out of the first group, that feels yummy and good.
Michelle 33
#15, Lia
Very well said, exactly. I would also add assertive, in other words, if there is something that’s bothering us as women, to speak up. I know that sounds easy, but often is challenging. Basically, our happiness is most important, so we can give partner
Karmic
Totally agree with what you’re saying.
RW
Sounds like you get it! As time goes on and challenges occur and life changes, keep your wise words of wisdom in mind.
Rose 34
Karmic Equation
“What book is worth $20? (He’s not a book lover like me). Why are you spending all MY money on this nonsense.”
I feel curious about this and would like to explore.
So what about a stay at home mum who is looking after THEIR children.
Do you think it is only the mans money in those circumstances and the women should get permission on if she wants to buy herself a book? make up? lunch out?
It is still their money in my eyes and the eyes of the law they are married.
If I do not question what he is spending our money on I would want the same respect.
And if either of us had a problem over not liking what OUR money was being spent on I would expect us to discuss it and resolve the conflict.
Rose 35
I would want to discuss it openly, although to me if someone used the words “What book is worth $20? (He’s not a book lover like me). Why are you spending all MY money on this nonsense.” It would pretty much tell me they were not open to discussing this is a loving respectful way.
I would be feel happy to talk about the issue if later they felt open to discussing it in an open and loving way, until then I would be out of there and not discuss it.
Lia 36
I have a friend who was married to a man that I hesitate to call a “beta man”. He was tall, handsome, strong, loved to hunt, very outdoors type guy. He was charming and funny but he was NOT career driven. She started a business and used his credit to do so. Initially he helped her get it up and going but then she found that she preferred to run it, for the most part, without him. He had a couple of jobs very short term in the time they were together (10 years) but most of the time he just did what he wanted.
What he did bring to the relationship was companionship. He went grocery shopping with her, went on errands with her, they went out to eat, to movies, and four wheeling together. He did guy stuff around the house as well as help with cooking and dishes. He just wasn’t motivated to get a job. There was plenty of money coming in and so they did play a lot together and, according to her, had a lot of sex.
It didn’t bother him that she was the “bread winner” and frankly she would not have had the business at all if not for him. (She readily acknowledges this.) But it really started to bother her that he was not “supporting her”. Though he always backed her up when it came to the kids (she had five, he had one). He always made the trip over the mountain to pick up or drop off her kids at their father’s house, sometimes without her going along. (This was a two hour drive.) So he did support her but not financially.
They have been divorced many years now and she has told me that looking back she realizes that he was a much better husband than she ever gave him credit for. She says that he is the one that taught her how to play. She had always been very serious even as a child and he showed her how to enjoy just being silly. She said that she used to laugh until she could hardly breathe. She didn’t see the gifts that he brought with him until long after he was gone.
Jenna 37
When a man has the confidence to pursue a woman in the way that Evan describes on this blog we should be expecting, I consider that masculine and alpha behavior, even if he’s got less money and less ambition. But I rarely find that combination of traits. Can’t tell you how many beta guys I know who have had a crush on me (that I heard about through the grapevine) who were too timid to ask me out or follow through. I don’t care how nice these people may be, I have a very reasonable standard that a guy ask me on dates and take the steps necessary to be my bf, then husband. It seems like usually the more traditionally successful guys are the ones who tend to do this, but if some cool blue collar guy came around who could properly pursue me I’d be into that.
Karmic Equation 38
Rose #35:
“I would want to discuss it openly, although to me if someone used the words “What book is worth $20? (He’s not a book lover like me). Why are you spending all MY money on this nonsense.” It would pretty much tell me they were not open to discussing this is a loving respectful way.”
I think one of the reasons men are so open to having relationships with me is because I don’t judge them. So when my ex said the words he said, I didn’t judge his openness or loving intention (or lack thereof)…I just took it at face value that he simply didn’t like me spending $20 on a book. I have to admit, even I didn’t like spending $20 on the book (until that day, I only bought paperbacks) but this particular book only came in hardcover, so I understood his consternation. I didn’t take it to mean that he was trying to control my behavior or that I was not entitled to buying any book without his permission, but rather why did it have to be a TWENTY-DOLLAR book.
Using humor, I was able to defuse the “who’s money is who’s” without having to make a big issue of it. Humor can go a long way to stabilize a rocky situation.
“I would be feel happy to talk about the issue if later they felt open to discussing it in an open and loving way, until then I would be out of there and not discuss it.”
If I had actually tried to resolve this issue by communicating with him as you would have, I don’t think we would have solved anything because (1) You’re trying to control HIM as in “Talk to me the way I like to be talked to or don’t talk to me at all” and (2) You would have made the issue a bigger issue than it was because you inferred he was trying to control you, when he was just trying to express unhappiness about your behavior.
Rose #34
“So what about a stay at home mum who is looking after THEIR children. Do you think it is only the mans money in those circumstances and the women should get permission on if she wants to buy herself a book? make up? lunch out?”
Well, men aren’t often detail oriented. If you went out grocery shopping and purchased a book and makeup with the grocery money, how would he ever know? If the children aren’t going to go hungry if you did this, then no-harm no-foul and ignorance is bliss for him. He’s not going to scrutinize your itemized grocery bill. But if you’re having trouble making ends meet, yet you feel a $20 book or makeup are necessary, I would say he would be within his rights to question you. Just as you would be within your rights if he decided to buy an equivalent male luxury if money were tight.
Selena 39
My son is a stay-at-home parent of 3 little boys. This was not his ‘life plan’ when he was younger. He had his own business at one time with a partner and it tanked the year his first child was born. His wife had a job and they decided they would rather have him take care of the baby instead of putting him in daycare. At the time…I think they both thought the situation would be temporary.
As it turned out, they decided this was the best way for their family. My daughter-in -law says “J has more patience than I do. He is also better when it comes to correction. I cave too easily!” I told my son I was proud of him for making the choice to be a SAHP. I know it isn’t an easy job for anyone. I think it might be even harder for males given some of the long-held expectations society put on them.
The end of men? Nah. Some of us, both men and women, just might need to do a bit of adjusting.
Greg 40
I agree with Jackie, above, that the title of the book is offensive. I find it grandiose and pretentious, actually. Unfortunately, the need for some sort of “edge” with regard to a title is endemic in literature today – one has to draw the buyer’s eye, obviously – consequently it stands to reason the author would draw more attention with “The End of Men” than with “The Ascent of Women.” The latter would be more sensible, but less compelling. And by the way, men are not “ending” at all. Making that claim engenders polarity rather than reciprocal and shared attitudes regarding change.
Helen 41
Selena 39, God bless your son. Your D-I-L is one fortunate woman. Being a stay-at-home parent is not for everyone, so it’s great that between the two of them, they worked out which would be better suited for it, if indeed anyone were to stay at home.
At the time my husband and I had our children, we were very socially conservative, so it was taken for granted that I would be the one to stay home with them. Selena, it was hell on earth. I can’t tell you how angry I was that the stay-at-home life is so romanticized in American culture, when in fact it can be such a tedious, exhausting, and mindblowingly frustrating job with newborns and toddlers. And it felt endless: day after day, usually 24 hours a day (you never knew which hours you got to sleep). Eventually we put our kids in daycare, and it felt like a sheer blessing to go back to work, have adult conversations, and enjoy 8 straight hours each day in which I didn’t have to raise my voice once.
That’s why I had to smile when reading what Evan quoted above from Rosin’s book, about how not too many men are moving into the roles of stay-at-home fathers. I couldn’t help thinking: well, duh. Some people ARE cut out to be stay-at-home parents, like your son most likely – but not that many overall, I would guess. There’s no reason to force men to take a position traditionally held by women that they don’t want. This is why outsourcing some things, including child care for at least part of the day, is such a great option. No need to blame either gender now that we have many more options available to us.
Rose 42
Ty Karmic Equation.
Feels interesting to read your different perspective of control. And I understand where you are coming from.
To me I see it as letting go of control as I have no expectation of the outcome and would not be trying to control if he spoke to me or not, suit himself really.and him choosing if he wants to discuss it or not in a way that feels respectful an loving with an open heart to me. And not disrespecting myself by staying around whilst someone chose to talk to me in a way that felt disrespectful to me.
I have no control over how others choose to behave and talk,only control on the words I choose and how I behave.
So those would be the words I would chose and the action would be to disengage until an open respectful discussion was on the table.
To me this is the opposite of trying to control another, do what they like. And is surrender speak.
Just like for instance if someone was smoking around my child, I would say I feel uncomfortable having my child exposed to cigarette smoke and didn’t want others smoking around them. And if they wanted to continue I would have to leave.
I’m not telling them what to do. It’s up tp them if they choose to continue to smoke around me and my child. Telling the to stop and what to do would be controlling. Telling them what I did and didn’t want would be surrendering control and letting them decide whilst still taking care of my self and leaving if they wanted to continue. Up to them what they do.But I owe it to myself and child to leave if they want to continue doing something that I believe is harmful to me or my child.
And it feels harmful to me to stay and tolerate someone taking to me in a way that feels disrespectful or attacking to me or my child, just as much as harm like smoking.
The first isl harmful as it would cause me to feel stress if I felt disrespected and stress can be a killer just as cigarette smoke can be.
Understand that you see it differently though.
Judy 43
Here’s the thing.
2 steps forward, 1 step sideways.
Women have come a LONG way in our country – we can get an education, we can work, we can marry or not marry. IT is our choice. Look at the news and see child brides and many horror stories around the world. Horror. If you look at the big picture we are blessed. Yes, we might spend a lot more time alone waiting for the one, but we are in heaven here, sisters. The old model, where we did not have a choice but to marry, is gone. Birth control is here, too. So we have choices like never before. And so do men.
So it boils down to – we don’t have to have men to survive and they don’t have to marry to have sex. Women are relationship oriented – they want to connect. And the men that savor the connection are fewer and farther between.
It is all about tradeoffs.
I think the gibberish about being feminine is a bunch of crap that dating coaches like to write about because we buy it. The truth is you have to balance what you really want – with what you can live with.
Selena 44
@Helen #42
I enjoyed reading your comments. Especially this, ” I can’t tell you how angry I was that the stay-at-home life is so romanticized in American culture, when in fact it can be such a tedious, exhausting, and mindblowingly frustrating job with newborns and toddlers.”
I was a SAHM for many of the years my son was growing up. MY choice and I don’t regret doing it. What sometimes bugged me back then was not that other people romantized the idea of stay-at-home parenting, it was that some didn’t consider it “work”, “a job”. That is, whatever you did wasn’t important unless an employer was paying you to do it. And if you had a college degree…you were wasting your education.
Over a dozen years ago I came across a joke on the internet that made me laugh and say “YES!!!” It went like this:
Husband comes home from work and finds his children running around naked in the front yard.
He goes into the kitchen and finds his dinner is not in the oven. In fact, there is milk and cereal spilled over the table and the floor. And the dog is painted blue.
He walks into the hallway and finds clothes and linens are piled up all over.
He walks into the livingroom where his wife is laying on the couch. He asks her, “What happened here today?”
She replies, ” Honey, you know how come every night and ask me what I did all day? Well today I didn’t do it.”
Michelle 45
I have to disagree with “and the men that savor the connection are fewer and farther between” (limiting belief). Millions of men marry women every day. The majority of men do want relationships, to partner and have children, with the right woman. (These are instinctual, biological needs that have been around for millions of years, and there’s no evidence these are going away soon. Sure, the details around how those biological needs are met change with personality, society, age, etc.) When it’s not the woman in question that he is choosing, she tends to blame it on ‘men’ because that’s less painful (and it is painful, just not truthful).
Helen 46
Selena 44: YES.
Judy 43: I agree 100% with your last paragraph: “I think the gibberish about being feminine is a bunch of crap that dating coaches like to write about because we buy it. The truth is you have to balance what you really want – with what you can live with.”
What it boils down to is that male and female personalities are not THAT different after all – but there is a lot of social pressure for women to behave in stereotypically feminine ways here in America. Every time I’ve traveled to or lived in Europe and China, I couldn’t help noticing that the women there acted much more sensibly than their American sisters. it’s because there’s much less expectation to play the dumb female, to put it bluntly. I also agree with your point that we need to balance what we want with what we can live with. If men don’t like our personalities, we can either attempt to twist ourselves into the stereotype of what they do want, or we can decide to be single and live as we please, which is not the worst thing in the world.
Judy 47
Michelle #45 perhaps you are in a different age group – I am in 50+ and a lot of men do not want to marry because they are divorced and still bitter or they have complicated lives. They are happy to have a girlfriend who only wants to see them a few times a week and it won’t go anywhere – they do not need the deep relationship and connection the way we do. Of course there are men who want relationships and who think we are the one and that is what we learn from Evan to find.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/opinion/child-marriage-kilusu/?iref=obnetwork
I just found that story – it is very sad. I am happy that i work hard and have a great career and that I live in a good country where we have equal rights.
Anita 48
If it’s the end of men it’s also the end of women because the two always go together. Maybe the title should be the end of gender because nobody knows what it means anymore, and the people who try to tell us what “feminine” is or what “masculine” is just end up sounding foolish. Even on the biological level, it seems, there is a wide gradation of gender traits–no one is all “male” or all “female.” And the whole idea of DNA or genes determining behavior has really come under attack in recent years. As has the simplistic way that complex biological things get reduced to pablum in the mainstream press. So I feel completely free to ignore anyone or anything that says that “women” do this, or “men” do that–especially if the assertion is backed up with some reference to “biology” or “genes” or “DNA coding.”
Helen 49
<stands up and applauds Anita 48>
Evan Marc Katz 50
@Anita and @Helen – “The End of Gender” sounds nice, except for the fact that men and women (based on biology and sociology) are NOT the same. Objectively. Scientifically. Case closed. We are EQUAL but different. And even if that difference is only 10%, understanding that 10% is often the key to healthier relationships. I don’t want to marry a woman who is just like a (typical) man. I would suspect that most men agree with me. So while you could chalk this up to “pablum”, that’s your bias speaking. That’s what you WANT to be true, not what IS true. Women have changed more than men have. This friction is why we’re reading lots of books and articles like this. It’s not a mainstream press that’s trying to create a story. It IS a story. And there are – and always have been – masculine and feminine, yin and yang. Wishing it away doesn’t make it any less true.
Helen 51
Evan, I think you missed Anita’s point (unless I did – Anita, you’d be the one to say). Her point is that the title “The End of Men” is ridiculous because, if you talk about the end of men, you might as well talk about the end of women as well. I never liked that title in the first place because of its inflammatory nature, perhaps deliberately designed to provoke attention and sales - and here is another reason why.
Evan Marc Katz 52
Sorry, Helen, I think you just took the first line she wrote and ignored the rest of it: “Maybe the title should be the end of gender because nobody knows what it means anymore, and the people who try to tell us what “feminine” is or what “masculine” is just end up sounding foolish.”
I’m one of those fools, apparently. You KNOW the difference between masculine and feminine. Hell, if I had a dollar for every woman who said she wanted a real MAN, I’d be rich. Many men are equally longing for feminine women, and have discovered that the traits that make one successful in business don’t necessarily make one successful at love. For both genders.
Selena 53
Over the years I’ve been reading internet forums, there have been several times where male posters have made a comment about babysitting their children when their wife/partner was out running errands or such.
Inevitably, a female commenter will write: “Um.. dude, it’s not babysitting when their your own kids.”
I’ve thought before, “How clueless can the guy be in the 2000′s?”
Today as I write this, I’m thinking, You know, he probably isn’t a dimwit. He’s just a person dealing with gender roles, change, the things his mom and dad told him, the things his peers have said. We are all figuring it out as we go along. I gonna cut a little slack. ‘Cause sometimes…I’d like other people to cut me a little slack too.
Rose 54
When I say I want a real man, I mean real as in he is REAL as in he doesn’t pretend be something he isn’t FAKE! Not hiding stuff about who he is because of his shame, or need for approval or need to manipulate and control. by lying and hiding the truth because he is scared of rocking the boat and wants to keep the peace. His words, body language and actions all have to match to make him REAL, honest authentic the REAL thing! A brave man is not afraid to rock the boat and tell the truth even if knows the other person isn’t going to like what they hear.
I know gay men who are REAL men they are still REAL men if they are open and honest. They are not women or fake men. They say this is me I am gay and if you do not like it that is your problem.
Gay men who PRETEND to be straight are not real men they are faking it.
Men who do things behind your back because they want their cake and eat it and FAKE men not being real. They are not women or men who want to be women, those are transsexual or transvestite. There are not only two genders that is a myth and a lie we were taught at school.
And when I say I want a real man I mean a real grown up man.
Actually what I want is a masculine energy as in takes the lead, grown up spiritually aware fully conscious man. Those are a rare breed. Yes there are predominantly masculine energy men out there not all of them are what I want though.
And I have come across many men who have traditional masculine jobs, engineers, mechanics, computer experts techie guys. But when it come to women and relationships they are more feminine in their energy.. They want to be asked out, have you pay, put their feelings first and want the woman to take the lead and in a crises be manly and the strong one and take care of them and the problem. They sit there being passive instead of actively taking the lead and initiating and doing
It’s the energy exchange.
So the choice is which role do you want in a romantic relationship. The masculine initiating, doing, giving thinking and leading making the plans asking out etc?
Or the feminine energy receiving, feeling, expressing?
In romance even with gays and bisexuals for there to be romance their has to be one of each. Otherwise you have friendship only or friends with ‘befits’ f2222ck buddies.
Ruby 55
Judy #47
” I am in 50+ and a lot of men do not want to marry because they are divorced and still bitter or they have complicated lives.”
I’ve encountered the same thing, including the minority of men who have never married, and probably never will, because they aren’t cut out for it) although they may pay lip service to wanting it). I see many men who don’t even want long-term relationships at that age. And with the divorce rate for 2nd and 3rd marriages even higher than or first marriages, perhaps they are right? Something isn’t working.
Evan Marc Katz 56
Rose, you said one thing worth repeating: “Actually what I want is a masculine energy as in takes the lead”.
It’s not sexist to say that. It’s what most women define as masculine. And most masculine men aren’t looking to pair up with a woman who takes the lead, asks him out, makes the plans, makes the very first move, asks him to get married, and so on. Masculine men tend to prefer – and be more compatible with – feminine women, who are content to be with a man who is a leader.
But you can’t have two people in the driver’s seat. And this is something that escapes many smart, strong, successful women. Glad it hasn’t escaped you.
Rose 57
What I have observed is that there are more women now who have become better and quicker at thinking and planning than a lot of men .Maybe because of better educational opportunities for the women. Who knows?
So they have overtaken mens ability in leading. A lot are better leaders. Problem is like you say they are biologically still hormonally women. And want to be romanced like women. They still want the man to be the leader but sadly they get fed up and bored of waiting for him to work out what he supposed to do and be an effective leader. Leading us how we want to be led.
I don’t see many men who have become better followers and better in empathy skills and biologically they are still hormonally men on the inside. Or maybe they are not anymore because of the hormones is the water from contraceptive pill. Who knows.
So maybe the author has a point after all.
Want to read all of the book now to see more of what she says and conclusions she had drawn.
All sorts of things that need researching into why now this mismatch.
Rose 58
It feels best to me to have my whole sentence quoted so it remains in context. and original meaning. Here is whole sentence@ what I want is a masculine energy as in takes the lead, grown up spiritually aware fully conscious man. Those are a rare breed.”
I do not believe most women just want a a masculine energy who takes the lead without the other things I mentioned, if he isn’t a spiritually aware fully conscious man. I don’t know many women who want a man to be their leader if they are not consciously aware and our wounded with past trauma and baggage. Not ready to be in a healthy relationship because they haven’t healed from their past stuff. Or spiritually aware and wanting a soul connection with the one
I don’t want any old masculine energy man to be my leader. Some masculine energy men who want to be my leader I don’t want them to lead me anywhere. As where they want to lead I definitely do not want to follow as it would be harmful for me.
kdr 59
Good lord, I cannot be the only woman who cringes at the thought of men taking on more “feminine qualities”. Blech. I like the “masculine” part of men; the feminization (is that a word?) of men makes me want to go watch a Robert Mitchum movie. “The end of gender” does not sound like a good idea to me.
I am trying to picture a man telling me “I am looking for a woman who is willing to meet in the middle and take on more masculine qualities. Or at least to make the effort, seeing as how I’m so sensitive and emotional and all”.
hd 60
With the already big and increasing number of males who take their diets seriously, spray tons of chemicals on their skin, hair and face, I disagree that men haven’t become feminine.
And, since the current economic world favors and reward sociable, cunning, manipulative, and cautious people, men have to learn to have those characters, if they want to survive this world, thus becoming more and more like women.
Hell, since traditional masculinity emphasize the ability to assault, loot, rape and violate (aka taking whatever you want for himself), the world has since become a better place since traditional masculinity goes extinct.
Though, if we go further into history (eg. Hedonistic period), masculinity was determined by many things, one of which is pederasty – having sex with male teenagers. I honestly can’t think of any group of males these days with that kind of behavior, except gay male pedophiles…
Helen 61
hd 60: most of your points are good. I’d disagree with two things: 1) In the past, men did spend a great deal of care on their grooming (witness powdered wigs and high-heeled shoes), and 2) cunning and manipulation are not traits unique to women.
I think the important takeaway point from your comments, however, is that masculinity is changing; or if we were to stick with traditional definitions, then it is waning. Personally, I am more of the belief that these definitions and artificial distinctions are continually in flux. But as to the point in your third paragraph: Steven Pinker at Harvard recently published a book on how our society is becoming ever more civil over the last millennium, despite naysayers who claim that society becomes ever worse. Of course this is true, when one considers the birth of the scientific method and concept of mercy in legal judgment.
Frimmel 62
RW in #16
“@Frimmel
>> feminism freed women from their traditional sex role. It did not free men
Yes, you are correct. But do men want to be freed? Isn’t that what this is all about? You could also argue that women do not want them to be freed (while wishing to be free themselves) but that’s a different ball of wax.”
My experience is that women do not want men to be ‘freed.’ My experience is that mostly women just want the parts of equality they like. (Women complain about not enough CEOs yet still remain mute that 92% of workplace fatalities are male.)
When it comes down to it women are the ones that can free men. When the majority of hot women with great jobs (and just generally attractive women with decent jobs) start seeking stay at home husbands men will change.
Not to open this can of worms again, “Do men have to pay for dates because they make more money or do they make more money because they have to pay for dates.” I was on a date recently and things around this topic came up and she claimed that men had been freed. I asked her how many unemployed men she’d been out with (she was not employed at the time) and ‘won’ the argument.
If you really want to understand where I’m coming from on this read Warren Farrell’s books, “Why Men are the Way They Are” and “Why Men Earn More and What Women Can Do About It.”
Karmic Equation 63
@Rose #26, 27 & 28
We had an amicable divorce. We were celibate the last two years of our marriage and neither of us cheated. We’re not the cheating type. I sought the divorce when I came to the realization that we were way to young to be living celibately (I was 39, he was 44) — and being OK with that. ONE of us should have cared enough to at least talk about it if not fight about it. Other men were starting to look too attractive…so divorce was the only option lest I go the cheating route. We didn’t have children, so that made the divorce easier.
#34, 35, 42 and 54
In 54 you wrote:
“His words, body language and actions all have to match to make him REAL, honest authentic the REAL thing! A brave man is not afraid to rock the boat and tell the truth even if knows the other person isn’t going to like what they hear.”
Yet at confrontation, when a guy is showing you his authentic self, you would (#35) make him do want him to CHANGE and become more feminine, and talk to you in a feminine way (sensitive and loving).
“I would be feel happy to talk about the issue if later they felt open to discussing it in an open and loving way, until then I would be out of there and not discuss it.”
You can’t have it both ways. Either love his authentic self and talk to him when he expresses himself or get a femininine man, because that is what you’re turning him into.
Manly men aren’t always tactful, unless their job is to be tactful, even then you can almost always tell when they’re biting their tongue And even the most tactful ones will not hold back, when it is effective to speak rawly (a la EMK).
I think you do understand how to be feminine, but I think you apply it at the wrong times. You should be feminine when attracting a man, but when you are in the midst of a heated discussion, that is the time to be assertive and stand your ground, especially if you feel you are in the right. And if you’re not sure, THEN you should acknowledge, with feminine grace, “You know, you may be right. Let’s talk abou this rationally…”
Don’t do the strawman argument thing. I hate that. Arguing about book is not the same as lighting up a cigarette with the child nearby.
And, if I were at a friend’s house, and they didn’t know better than to light up or go out of the room for a smoke, I would say, nicely, “Since I have little Jane with me, I’m going to step outside with here while you smoke, Ok? Let me know when the smoke clears. <With gracious smile>” — And I would hope that my friend would say, “Oh darn, I forgot, don’t do that, I’ll step out.” or “Ok.” — Either outcome would be fine by me. That is assertive speaking and NOT trying to control the outcome or the person. Your way is controlling. Just because you don’t label it that, doesn’t me you’re not trying to do that.
@EMK 50
I was kind of riled and thinking of a way to reply that didn’t sound riled. Glad you were able to do that.
@kdr 59
No you are not the only one. I’m with you. If you want a manly man, you have to put up with the male way he’s going to go about doing certain things.
@Frimmel 62
I agree with you. Most women are selective about with part of sexual equality they support. Dating an umemployed man is definitely one of them, they won’t even if they’re making enough to support the both of them.
Anita 64
You know what I’ve seen and read lately? I saw a video of funny animal things where a huge dog humped a woman, two male dogs took turns humping each other, and a dolphin leapt up on a dock and humped a trainer. I read about plants changing their sex and worms being hermaphroditic. I read an article about a squid or an octopus where the male has one spermy tentacle that detaches and creeps across the ocean floor to impregnate the female squid/octopus, and then he grows a new spermy tentacle. I read some article that talked about farmers having sex with barn animals, usually sheep, and the number is a lot higher than you would think. I read another article that talked about one diocese where the authorities did a detailed investigation into sexual abuse there and found that 4% of the priests were pedophiles–the same number as in sports clubs, schools, and the population at large. After I watched another funny animal video of some primate in what I would call a shoulder stand having a hilarious time peeing into his own mouth, I reached the following conclusions: 1) biology across all species is incredibly diverse in its exressions of gender and sexuality, and 2) either biology is not really all that concerned with procreation or it’s not that bright.
Karmic Equation 65
@Anita 64
I guess that’s pretty interesting if you’re a farmer or an octopus. But I don’t get how what you’ve read applies to heterosexual women looking for relationships?
Steve 66
EMK writes:
This is true. But Rosin’s built-in suggestion to men is a bit one-sided: the answer to these dilemmas is for men to change. Rosin points out that “women have become more masculine in their traits – assertive, independent, willing to take a stand. Men have not come towards the center, seeing themselves as tender or gentle.”
1. Men do not like many women with those traits. That is why Evan’s clients are “smart strong successful women”. Those women don’t know how to stop acting like men once they are off the clock.
2. Men do not want to become feminine.
3. Women do not want men to become more feminine, including Evan’s “smart strong successful women” clients. Women want men because they are masculine. Even the “smart strong successful women” want men who they perceive as masculine. A number of them, not all, want men who earn as much, if not more then they do.
Steve 67
EMK writes
But Rosin spends a lot more time reflecting – on how men are falling behind than she does telling women how to adjust to the new world order. To be fair, this new world order, with women at the top, is the central premise of the book. And, to be fair, Rosin does a good job weaving a narrative based on anecdotes and statistics that support her case. Except they don’t entirely do so.
For example, “Among college graduates 25-39, women make up 45.9%.” Women earn 60% of masters, half of all law and medical degrees, and 44% of all business degrees.”
That is why I tell my friends while I have nothing against equality I do not care to support feminism. When I ask what is in it for me or men in general I can’t think of anything. True or not, when I see statistics like that quoted, I do not see feminists or women standing up and shouting “OMG, men are falling behind in education, we have to do something about that so everyone is equal”. Even for women to come up to about 50% of the places in college and for particular jobs means that some men have to lose out. In the meantime I see portrayals of men being emasculated all over the entertainment industry ( example “The Hunger Games” ). Additionally, a number of men have problems with having grown up having heard a lot of male bashing messages from feminists.
My attitude is that I am all about equality, I respect people looking out for their interests and I admire people who work at building themselves up. As far as feminism and an eternal “we only need to help women” position goes, my attitude is “no thanks”
Selena 68
There is an old song from back in the 1960′s that has these lyrics:
“You can’t always get what you want. You can’t always get what you want. But sometimes… you just might find… You get what you need.”
Anita 69
Karmic@65: My post is in response to the assertion that biology dictates mating behavior, as you read in the popular press. I was taking on the very popular assumption that “men do this” and “women do that” so that the species will survive. My biggest problem with these arguments, aside from the simplistic (ignorant) way the media handle scientific info, is that people start using this media science to justify rude, thoughtless, cruel, or predatory behavior toward members of the opposite sex. Or to justify lifestyle decisions that are human social constructs–not biological ones.
Anita 70
Steve@66,67: If women make up more than 50% of the population, and 50% of spots in schools are going to women, how are women taking anything away from men? Men aren’t falling behind in education; they had an unfair advantage before and now that the academic playing field is more level certain men are finding that they cannot compete with certain women, women who in previous generations would have had their wings clipped. So these men are going to have to go do something else. The way women have always had to. But to use the age-old justification for competition–this upping of the ante will make the world stronger and better because the best and the brightest from all walks of life–not just the best and the brightest from the smaller pool of white males–will have a chance to contribute their talents to the world.
Karmic Equation 71
Anita@69
Disclaimer: I’m sure that what I say below will have exceptions, but the exceptions don’t disprove the rule.
Of course biology dictates mating behavior. Most men want to have sex with women and most women want to have sex with men. While some women want to mate with women and some men want to mate with men, even THEN you can often tell which mate is the “masculine” one and which mate is the “feminine” one in the relationship.
Then there are other things that I can’t help but attribute to something other than social constructs…Like why women LOVE shoes and men LOVE power tools (and not usually the other way around). You also can’t deny that MOST men [who have options] have to suppress their desire for variety when in a committed relationship, while most women don’t have to suppress their desire for variety [of men] when in a committed relationship. In fact MOST women have trouble even THINKING ABOUT another man, never mind dating another man, when she “feels” a connection with one man. Hence all the angst about why a man she was interested in never calls back or disappears. Do most MEN [with options] have this angst? No.
I would echo Evan and say that while you may WISH that men and women are “the same” and that our dating/mating behaviors are determined by something other than biology, the reality is that our male and female “minds” and “psyches” — or even male/female “collective unconsciousness” (Jung ?) — are different on a level that are NOT based on social constructs or gender-neutral decision-making, but on something that is harder to define. And while the term “biology” can mean specifically DNA, as you have chosen to do, “biology” in the sense that it is used on dating/relationship websites is a more appropriate term to describe those differences not attributable to social constructs.
Anita #70
I agree with you on this.
Steve #66
Well summarized. I agree.
“1. Men do not like many women with those traits. That is why Evan’s clients are “smart strong successful women”. *Those women don’t know how to stop acting like men once they are off the clock.*“
In the Rachel Greenwald book, Have Him at Hello, there is support for the statement that I highlighted above:
One man told me that most women he meets today would prefer he “admire their accomplishments rather than their butts … If you’d take professional respect over lust, you might have just lost that second date. I call these Boss Ladies part of “The Cinderella Generation”: They broke the glass ceiling but broke their glass slipper along with it. <snipped>
While it’s hard to transition from taking charge, focusing on the bottom line, and organizing schedules, it’s imperative to grasp that men say the “image” of the woman they want at 8:00pm isn’t the same image of the woman they want at 8:00am.
#67
I agree with you but from a feminine angle
I am all for equal pay for equal work, and the all the business and educational benefits that were the results of feminism.
And while I personally love the sexual liberation that came from the sexual revolution that went with the rise of feminism, that sexual liberation came at a high cost to women, who “biologically” still yearn for committed relationships, but are no longer finding them easy to get. Because while the sexual revolution liberated women to have sex without consequences (i.e., pregnancy), the unintended consequence of that liberation ALSO freed MEN…from committed relationships…and to indulge THEIR biological desire for variety… without consequences.
I don’t believe that women “won” on the sexual liberation front. Men did, in a big way. And for this reason…and also because I don’t think most men deserve to be bashed…I don’t believe feminism is all it’s cracked up to be.
Ellen (Rebekah) aka redheadinDixie 72
Karmic wrote: I don’t believe that women “won” on the sexual liberation front. Men did, in a big way. And for this reason…and also because I don’t think most men deserve to be bashed…I don’t believe feminism is all it’s cracked up to be.
Karmic you are YOUNG and have NO idea what we went thru. Spend some time at this site seeing dozens of feminist pioneers interviewed like Marlo Thomas, the first female marathon runner (yeah, it wasn’t that long ago), Pat Schroeder (one of my heroes I think), Gloria, Hilary,Ellen Degeneres, Nora Ephron, etc. as they describe in detail the incredible prejudice, discrimination, insults they endured, really not that long ago kiddo.
http://www.makers.com/
As Taylor Swift said recently (even she gets it), quoting someone famous whom I cannot recall, “There is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.”
Btw, plenty of feminists are married, adore men, etc. One doesn’t preclude the other dear.
Steve 73
@Anita #70
If men ONLY stand to lose from feminism, why should they support it?
Why should I vote for things that will take away opportunities for people like me?
Steve 74
@Karmic Equation #71
Men have been dealing with “that problem” for decades on dates. It used to be called being a bore and those men were advised to talk about something else other than work on a date.
Lia 75
@ Ellen # 72
The thing about feminism that I object to is the vilification of men. I do believe there are a lot of things to be grateful for. I am thankful to be living in this time and that things have changed for women. Yes, it was an uphill struggle to get to the place we are now. Yes, there were women who spoke out and stood against the prejudice and inequality.
But men as a group and gender are NOT THE ENEMY. There is no need to push them down so that we may rise. There is no need to make them less so that we can be more. There is no need to shame them because there were men in the past who made it hard for women to live their dreams or just survive. As women we don’t became the best we can be by turning into the same kind of prejudice, egomaniacal, bullies that many men use to be a generation ago.
Lia 76
@ Ellen # 72
P.S. I loved the quote.
Karmic Equation 77
@Ellen #72
No. I’m not that young. 45. At the right age and attitude to date well below my age as well as high above it as I wish (which is rarely, LOL).
I believe in equal pay for equal work, voting, equal opportunity, basically all the rights and privileges that were granted to us in the BUSINESS and EDUCATION world.
However, in the RELATIONSHIP world, the sexual liberation movement, which many equate with or lump into “feminism”, didn’t ONLY liberate women, it liberated MEN in a way that was unforeseen and UNACKNOWLEDGED by most “feminists.” Freeing women to have sex actually freed men to have MORE sex with MORE women than ever before. How many feminists want to defend this social construct of their making?
And I think the word “feminists” is a misnomer as modern-day feminists (not the pioneers) don’t believe that there is power in being a woman: harmonious, radiant, receptive. They believe in the masculine counterparts: harsh, somber, aggressive. It would be more accurate to label modern-day feminists “masculinists” because they devalue women’s feminine tendencies in favor of promoting masculine ones to define success.
Unfortunately, the skills that women hone to be successful in the business world are NOT the skills that will help her find the man of her dreams. Because the man of her dreams is NOT dreaming of a woman who acts like a man. They’re dreaming of feminine women, in flowy dresses and lacy lingerie. Accept it.
And, imo, the more passionately a woman defends her “masculine” powers, the more I tend to believe she doesn’t know how to be feminine. “Methinks thou protesteth too much.”
There’s a time for everything, INCLUDING being feminine. Be a man at work, you have to be in order to succeed in a male-dominated business world.
But when you’re away from work, you have to GLORY IN being a woman. If you don’t know how, read books, blogs, ask your most girly-girl girl friend. Ask a guy (but make sure he is not related to you, not gay, and isn’t hoping to get in your pants).
It is not weak to be a feminine woman. It’s wise, if you’re looking for a masculine man.
@Lia 75
Well said. I agree with you.
Kathleen 78
Ellen # 72
I couldn’t agree more with your eloquently worded post.
There is clearly a lack of understanding of feminism by women younger than I based on ignorance.
Anyone saying feminism is about vilifying men or becoming men needs to review history.
Karmic Equation 79
@Kathleen 78
Neither you nor Ellen read my full posts. You see the word feminism and anything negative and you’re blinded by a red haze.
Unless you and Ellen were in your early 20′s in the 60′s, neither of you are pioneers of feminism, so I would consider you both modern-day feminists, most of whom, unfortunately do bash men. Maybe the two of you don’t, but way too many women out there have taken feminism in a direction the original feminists never intended.
I have every respect for the pioneers of feminism, even if I don’t agree with the one result that no feminist ever talks about, now or then: The UNINTENDED consequences of the sexual revolution were not what women bargained for. So in this aspect “feminism” failed women.
It didn’t fail ME. I can have sex without a committed relationship. It’s all the other women who can’t have sex unless their guy commits to exclusivity first who are the most negatively affected.
There were fewer players pre-sexual revolution. Maybe your cousin’s sister’s best friend was knocked up by a player back then. But now all women have met/dated/banged a player or two in their lifetimes and, god forbid, even pay former players (Sorry, Evan!) to help them find good relationships. There were no books on how to avoid players or how to be players pre-sexual revolution. Do you think that’s a coincidence? Men and women have been having relations since Adam and Eve yet post-sexual revolution, there’s a cottage industry of dating/relationship coaches?
The business and educational benefits we gained because of feminism are great! I acknowledge that wholeheartedly.
However, the sexual revolution, which to most feminists is synonymous with feminism, did not help most women when it comes to sex or relationships. It hurt them. It helped men instead. That is what feminists will never acknowledge. But it should be acknowledged. No feminist wants to take the mea culpa for that.
Ellen (Rebekah) aka redheadinDixie 80
Karmic wrote: “But when you’re away from work, you have to GLORY IN being a woman. If you don’t know how, read books, blogs, ask your most girly-girl girl friend. Ask a guy (but make sure he is not related to you, not gay, and isn’t hoping to get in your pants).”
Karmic, the inability for many here to read posts carefully is the reason I seldom come on here anymore. Tired of pulling my hair out. Uh, is this advice for me whom you’ve never met? ‘Cause I try not to make any sort of mental leaps here with anyone. “Never assume” is also a great quote. I would advise everyone to give the POV without lecturing and making insane assumptions about posters they’ve never met.
But I’ll get back to that.
On a different note, maybe, as you declare, present-day feminists are more radical than in the past. I wouldn’t know, ’cause I haven’t investigated it or read the recent literature much except for Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Trap, I think it’s called. I doubt you have either, frankly. Actually the one modern sorta feminist I have read a little- Paglia- is both a “dissident” feminist and big supporter of males, but I digress..(from what I understand she is a feminist but has a LOT to say that is very anti-feminism. It’s complicated but I think she has been a bit of a publicity hound about it in the past so I don’t take her that seriously).
Maybe present day feminists, to a woman (see how illogical your argument is ?), secretly all HATE the eternal womanly qualities as you so blithely declare. If they do, ok, yes, that is wrong, but why lump them all together?
Re your unasked for advice, regarding being womanly, uh, I’ve got that covered- in spades Karmic. In earlier posts, going back months though, I have described myself as an alpha female, as girly but not super girly-girl, as a kind of cerebral sorta Southern Belle, etc. I am opening myself up to ridicule, but really, if I had to describe myself honestly that is how I would describe myself. And I say it with as much humility as I can muster. I am, in short, who I want to be and nothing less (thanks in part to feminism and the influence of my late father I might add).
…. Now, the alpha part I slowly reveal to guys to see if they can handle it. My current boyfriend of 15 months is VERY alpha and he’s ok with it ’cause he admires me. He is always telling me proudly how strong I am emotionally, how butch I can be emotionally…..And as I still wear 3 and 4 inch heels on occasion and fairly tight fitting clothing ’cause I can (ok not during the winter ’cause that’s when I gain), I am living proof you can be smart, successful, cerebral (even an intellectual), alpha (with all that delicious male energy and confidence) AND girly. All at once. It’s all in how you present yourself to the world. I am all that without dominating any conversation. I am all that without being a bore. I am all that without being smug or hopelessly opinionated (most people never catch on I’m an intellectual til they’ve known me a while). I am all that while showing intense interest and love for others. See how complicated and gray the world/life can be if you would just stop hiding behind your agenda/dogma/simple, facile generalizations?
I am proof you can embrace your femininity without letting go of the rest- even for a damn second, at home and at work and on a date. So stop assuming many of us who comment here are clueless that way (you have a habit of that).
And Lia I think we still need feminism or something similar given the abysmal tendency of the male psyche to want to regress and conveniently forget (unless we persist) how capable we are. The Republicans proved that in the recent election. They want to return the US and females back to 1950. So Lia and Karmic, uh, YEAH, we need to be vigilant at least. And I won’t even go into how underrepresented we are in Congress and on corporate boards of directors.
Kathleen @78- thanks for the support. Glad someone gets it here today.
Lia 81
@ Kathleen #78
“Anyone saying feminism is about vilifying men or becoming men needs to review history.”
With all due respect I am cognizant of what has come before. But if you are always looking back instead of what is NOW then I believe that is ignorance. Ignorance of what the repercussions have been. Change of that magnitude always has repercussions. To think otherwise is foolish. There have been changes in every area of our lives and we need to address these changes.
@ Karmic Equation # 79
YES!
Selena 82
@Karmic
I consider feminism a cultural shift at a period in history. I identify as a person, not as a feminist. And while the sexual revolution perhaps freed up men not have to commit in order to get sex, they still are committing all over the place. The wedding business is gigantic. The stats for people who choose not to marry, but cohabitate are large and seemingly growing. So I don’t feel the need to acknowledge that the revolution hurt women while it helped men instead. I see it as helping both genders to make their own choices instead of being into choices they perhaps weren’t suited to.
And that would apply to ‘players’ as well. Better a single guy to not commit than to become a cheating husband.
Ruby 83
karmic
I see the rise in relationship coaching as just another aspect of the self-help and therapy movements. In my mother’s day, people didn’t go to therapy the way they do today, they didn’t consult relationship advisors or life coaches. Maybe they read Dear Abby or Ann Landers, but many problems were just swept under the rug. If a girl had sex, she’d become the town tramp. If she got pregnant, she had to have the baby, and was sent away. If there was access to abortion, she was lucky if she didn’t die during the procedure. If you got married and your marriage was horrible (for both men & women), you just sucked it up, because divorce was frowned upon. Sex is much more out in the open today. Is it all perfect? Obviously not, but I cannot imagine going back to a time when women couldn’t acknowledge that they are sexual beings, so let’s not romanticize “the good old days”.
The rules have changed and many of us make it up as we go along. Karmic, I can have sex without a committed relationship if I’m not in love with the guy. Sometimes i don’t know if he’s someone I’ll fall in love with right away. Sometimes I’ve thought I was in love, but realize after a few months that i’ve misjudged him. I may want a committed relationship and to be in love, but I am not a slave to my feelings (or my hormones) just because I’m female.
Ellen, I get it, and I thank you for your posts.
Selena 84
Well put Ruby. Same here.
Karmic Equation 85
@Ellen
This is what I perceive modern-day feminism to be:
The original feminists wanted equality for women; they did not want extra rights for women, nor to take rights away from men. In the eyes of a growing number of people, modern feminism has taken the banner of equality, and used it as a smokescreen for radical activities.
(Excerpted from http://www.freewebs.com/feminism-evaluated/)
——————–
I’ve never written anywhere on this blog that women cannot be alpha and feminine. I’ve never even written that women cannot have both feminine and masculine qualities. What I do say is that women need to let their feminine side out when they want to attract masculine men…as YOU wisely did yourself.
“Now, the alpha part I slowly reveal to guys to see if they can handle it.” — YES, wisely done. Very femininely smart of you!
It’s not ME that’s assuming anything. YOU are the one assuming that strong, smart, successful (“SSS”) women are being feminine and revealing their alpha-ness over time (as you and I do, btw). They’re not. If most SSS women did as you and I do while dating, Evan would be out of a job.
Main Entry: fem·i·nism
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests
Being a feminine, alpha woman, doesn’t make you a feminist. Because that’s what I am, and I don’t consider myself a feminist. I PARTAKE of the benefits of feminism (see #1). But if feminism is also #2, then feminism failed women as it pertains to sex and relationships. How is it in women’s best interests to present men with more women to have no strings sex with? Does that benefit women? How? How does giving a man a free pass to sex without commitment in a woman’s best interest, when most women yearn for committed relationships before sex?
“They want to return the US and females back to 1950. So Lia and Karmic, uh, YEAH, we need to be vigilant at least. And I won’t even go into how underrepresented we are in Congress and on corporate boards of directors.”
Don’t blame men for that. Women vote too, and aren’t there just as many, if not more, women in the voting population than men? Shouldn’t women candidates win, at least the popular vote, if not congressional district votes?
@Lia 81
Agreed completely. Well said.
@Selena 82
“The wedding business is gigantic.”
That’s commercialism, not indication of commitment. Are there more marriages now than pre-sexual revolution? (percentage in proportion with the population then and now?)
“The stats for people who choose not to marry, but cohabitate are large and seemingly growing.”
So, would you be happy just living with your next bf or would you want him to eventually marry you? If marriage is the goal, cohabitation can be detrimental to that goal. Why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free?
“And that would apply to ‘players’ as well. Better a single guy to not commit than to become a cheating husband.”
A player with integrity who decides to marry isn’t any more likely to cheat than a non-player without integrity who marries. In fact, I would bank on the ex-player with integrity to stay faithful (a la EMK). It’s not whether the guy you marry was a player, but rather whether he has integrity.
@Ruby 83
I would agree with you if all the smart, stong, successful women on this blog say they don’t need to marry to have children. That they never felt the need to marry to have children. Today, we can have children out of wedlock as well as sex. So why do women want to marry? Why not just have boyfriends or a string of flings and booty calls?
Women haven’t changed that much when it comes to relationships. What women wanted then and now are the same: Committed relationships. Getting that is not only more difficult, but also there is still no guarantee of success even though BOTH men and women have more choices to select from, in theory.
But do YOU really feel you have that smorgasbord of men to select from to marry? Have you earned a marriage proposal from each man you dated? So, who actually has the smorgasbord to choose from when it comes to relationships now? It’s not women.
So until Feminists tell women to go forth and propagate ALONE (i.e., “Single mothers are powerful. Become a single mother!”) in addition to going forth and prosper ALONE (i.e., “We don’t need men for their money. We can earn our own money!”), they’re not helping women when it comes to sex and relationships.
The sexual revolution shifted the power of relationships from women to men. Pre-sexual revolution WOMEN often had choices amongst multiple suitors to marry, because that was the socially-accepted way for good men to have consistent access to sex. Today good men can delay marriage or choose not to marry at all and still have consistent access to sex. Most women then and now want marriage and children.
So who gained from the sexual revolution? Tom10 would say the 9′s and 10′s of both sexes. And I would agree. But they had that advantage back then too, so that’s not really a gain. The gain is by high-value men (and even low-value men, ‘cuz ladies we’ve all slept with losers) who no longer have to marry to get consistent access to sex.
Yes, forcing men to marry for sex didn’t mean the marriages were good back then. But that doesn’t mean that all marriages were bad either. Consider that you wouldn’t be alive today if your parents didn’t marry, whether by choice or design. And today, when there is no external force exerted on people to marry and they do, those marriages still end in divorce. So having more freedom to choose our mates didn’t mean we’ve been making better choices. Another sexual revolution fallacy.
So, remind me again, how did feminism help the average marriage-minded, family-oriented woman reach her objective?
Happiness aside, pre-sexual revolution more women reached that objective.
——————-
Just to clarify my position:
1) Women should present their best feminine self on dates. Does that mean they cannot be masculine at other times? No. Just don’t be masculine on DATES and certainly not first, second, or third dates with men they’re attracted to. If not attracted, be as masculine as they care to be.
2) Women can have masculine traits, and even LOVE their masculine selves, and still be considered women. Just don’t show the masculine stuff during the INITIAL STAGES of dating. Reveal that part gradually.
3) Feminism did women a great service for equal rights.
4) Feminism failed women when it comes to sex and relationships.
Ruby 86
“The business and educational benefits we gained because of feminism are great! I acknowledge that wholeheartedly.”
One more point: the business and education benefits are also what has given women more financial independence. With that independence comes the freedom to marry when we choose, to not marry at all, to take care of our children, to have a stay-at-home partner. So I believe it’s all inter-related.
Lia 87
“And Lia I think we still need feminism or something similar given the abysmal tendency of the male psyche to want to regress and conveniently forget(unless we persist) how capable we are”
Really? Men would just backslide into the old ways of their fathers before them if we don’t persist? Do you really see men that way? Granted the Republicans were bat sh*t crazy but their guy didn’t get voted in, did he? There is always going to be some ignorant slob who wishes for the days when women were second class citizens. Do all men get to bear the burden of that stupidity?
I believe there is a difference between being aware and being vigilant. Aware is defined as having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact. Vigilant is defined as keeping careful watch for possible danger or difficulties. Look at those two words and if you will just take a moment to FEEL how different they feel. If I am aware of what goes on around me I can make judgements about whether or not everything is okay. If I am vigilant there is a stance of defense as if the attack were probable. If I am waiting for an attack so I can defend against it is it possible that I would see danger where none exists?
Michelle 88
I don’t understand how anyone can get the idea that there are those in the U.S. (other countries is another story) who want to hold down and suppress women? Women have NEVER had more educational, sexual and professional opportunity than today.
Just because someone believes in morals and values that may conflict with others, does NOT mean they want to suppress women. Believe me, experience, knowledge and a paycheck, viewpoints, beliefs and values often change over time.
@Karmic, another excellent post! When feminism is about hurting men (which includes our son’s by the way) to gain advantage or to equalize everyone (impossible), that’s where I part ways, which is pretty much all the time with today’s feminist movement/business.
Karmic Equation 89
@Rose 86
“With that [financial] independence comes the freedom to marry when we choose, to not marry at all, to take care of our children, to have a stay-at-home partner. So I believe it’s all inter-related.”
Yes, feminism did give us more freedoms in general and to our benefit. However, when it comes to sex and relationships those seeming freedoms didn’t free us.
Point by point:
-The freedom to marry when we choose
From your posts it sounds like you’re looking to marry. So if you have the freedom to choose when you marry, and you’ve wanted to be married for a while now, not just when you wrote this post, why aren’t you married already? Did you turn down marriage proposals from men you’ve dated in the past? Or did none of them propose? And if they didn’t propose, why didn’t YOU propose yourself? So do you REALLY have the freedom to marry when you choose? Or do you have the freedom to choose to marry the man who chooses to marry you? Who has the power?
-The freedom to not marry at all
Is that really a freedom if no one has proposed to (generic) you?
-The freedom to take care of our children
That’s not a choice. It’s a law. If (generic) you have them you’re obligated by law, if not by maternal instincts, to take care them.
-The freedom to have a stay-at-home partner
In #10 you wrote “…we’ll just be looking for a man who makes a decent income and wants an equal relationship.”
Sure we do, but yet we don’t, do we? Women still want that man with some income, not no income. There was a whole thread about this, right?
This freedom sounds awesome. So awesome in fact, that almost all financially independent women are champing at the bit to find and marry their potential stay-at-home partner. NOT.
The reality is men who are willing to be the stay at home parent aren’t the alpha men most women on this board are looking for.
———————-
The freedoms feminists tout regarding the sexual revolution didn’t help women. The sexual revolution SEEMINGLY helped women, but in fact helped MEN. That is the fallacy of the sexual revolution. Just be AWARE of that. And being aware of this doesn’t neutralize all the good that feminism HAS provided to us.
More food for thought: the sexual revolution did NOT free women, it just enslaved them in a different way.
Whereas once upon a time, women could withhold sex for marriage (and were expected to do so) — now women have to “settle” and withhold sex until “exclusvity” with no assurance that exclusivity will become a marriage.
Whereas society once frowned upon pre-marital sex, now society looks askance at those who abstain. You and your boyfriend are not having a “normal” relationship if you’re not having sex with each other (unless for religious reasons).
Whereas you were once a good-girl if you abstain, now you’re a prude.
Amongst the young, Whereas there was once peer-pressure to remain chaste, there is now peer-pressure to “do it.” 13yo’s giving/getting oral sex think there’s nothing wrong with that.
The list goes on.
Just as the alcholic/gambler who doesn’t acknowledge their problems, can’t fix their problem, feminism cannot fix this until they acknowledge it. Which they have yet to do. Which folks on this board who aren’t feminists are loathe to do. I don’t understand why.
Frimmel 90
re #89 feminism not admitting it has a problem
Feminism is stuck with its characterization of the traditional female sex role as oppression and the traditional male sex role as privilege. Anything that challenges that notion such as being on the losing end of sexual freedom as Karmic describes MUST be ignored. As soon as a traditional male sex role is not a privilege (having to get married to get sex for instance) but an oppression then all of the foundation of Patriarchy theory starts crumbling.
Any re-examination of what is expected of men that doesn’t support men’s traditional sex role as privilege is anathema.
Frimmel 91
Here is a longer look at characterizing traditional sex roles.
http://www.owningyourshit.blogspot.in/2011/10/can-we-redefine-terms-please.html
Ruby 92
Karmic #89
I’m not sure why you are personalizing my post as being entirely about me, when I meant it in general terms. In other words, I’m talking about the collective “we”.
Of course, women today have the freedom to marry or not marry. Some women choose not to, some choose to live with a partner. Most women still do marry. I wasn’t too interested in marriage when I was younger, and I’m still not sure how I feel about, so don’t jump to too many conclusions about me.
As far as the freedom to take care of our children goes, I probably should have used the work “ability”, but I suspect you knew that’s what I meant.
Stay-at-home dads? Don’t know about you, but I’ve known quite a few of them, and I think that their numbers are growing, even if they never become the norm. Most of the men I’ve known who did stay at home only did so while the child or children were very young, not indefinitely. This wasn’t acceptable in my mother’s generation at all. My father expected my mother to stay at home and not work, and she never questioned that.
“Women still want that man with some income, not no income.” I don’t see where I’ve disagreed with that. Actually, I don’t believe that most women want 100% alpha men, even if they could find them, and I’d argue that most men have a mix of different traits anyway.
I think that in the early days of the sexual revolution, people explored their sexuality without always knowing what the consequences would be. And with the advent of AIDS and the increase in STDs, not being careful in terms of your sexual health could be deadly. There were emotional consequences as well, and they didn’t affect only women. But just because there have been bumps along the way doesn’t make the sexual revolution bad for women or a complete mistake.
The days when gentleman callers appeared on women’s porches to vie for their attention are gone forever, yet most people still marry. You seem to believe that the ability to withhold sex for marriage got women better marriages, but i see no evidence of that. Again, even if your marriage was bad, you usually toughed it out anyway. I also believe that sexual compatibility is a component of most healthy marriages, so abstaining until the wedding night is no longer going to cut it for most women. If that’s another woman’s choice, however, good for her. The goal isn’t simply marriage, though, it’s a healthy marriage. Should there be more marriages? Or should there be better ones?
“Whereas there was once peer-pressure to remain chaste, there is now peer-pressure to “do it.” 13yo’s giving/getting oral sex think there’s nothing wrong with that.” I don’t think you’ll find many feminists who think that’s a good idea, and I don’t think feminism ever advocated for children having sex. The media and advertising, and the peer pressure that arises from that, are more to blame than “feminism”, because sex does sell.
Even among women who consider themselves feminists, you won’t find 100% consensus on every issue, and you’ll find some feminists to be more conservative in their beliefs and some more radical. It was true in the early days of the movement, and it’s still true today.
Karmic Equation 93
#92
“But just because there have been bumps along the way doesn’t make the sexual revolution bad for women or a complete mistake.”
I never said that the sexual revolution was a “complete mistake” but I know that it has not been the wonderdrug that feminists have marketed it be.
On the flip side, feminists and many others can’t acknowledge that the sexual revolution was in any way bad for women.
And how do you measure “healthier” marriages objectively? If people are marrying for the first time, they have nothing to compare against. And if they’re on their 2nd+ marriage, then they’re adding to the divorce statistic, which proves my point that they’re not making better choices with their freedom. So the only way to infer it, is by quantity or by longevity. On both those counts, I believe modern marriages do NOT measure up to marriages pre-sexual revolution. But really, there is no way to measure “healthier.” So this is not an arguable point.
And your point about gentlemen callers being gone forever proves my point. Men don’t have to vie for women’s “favors” any more. Women no longer have a selection of men to choose from who offer to be her husband before ever having sex with her. Basically men used to offer marriage for sex, now women offer sex for mere “sexclusitvity.” Which obligates the guy for what? While you’re giving up the goods he desires. You really don’t think that’s a downgrade as well as a loss of power for women?
If you’re a democrat, you can be a liberal democrat or a conservative democrat (although I think “conservative democrat” has become an oxymoron) — and if you’re a republican, you can be a liberal or conservative republican. But you will rarely mistake a republican for a democrat or vice versa. So either you’re a feminist (conservative, liberal, centrist, whatever) or you’re not a feminist. You don’t get a get-out-of-jail-free-card by saying there are no consensus amongst feminists on various issues.
Ruby 94
“And your point about gentlemen callers being gone forever proves my point. Men don’t have to vie for women’s “favors” any more. Women no longer have a selection of men to choose from who offer to be her husband before ever having sex with her.”
In another post, you mentioned that you didn’t want to be stuck with a lousy lover. Has it occurred to you that other women may feel the same way, or that they might not view their sexuality as “goods” to offer in trade for marriage, even if they might be affected emotionally by the consequences of pre-marital sex? Can you not see women as emotionally fragile beings who can’t survive if a relationship doesn’t end in marriage, especially when most relationships don’t? Can you imagine that not all women want to get married? But somehow, 90% of the population still marries despite it all. Interesting.
Karmic Equation 95
@Ruby 94
You’re missing the forest for the trees. In this blog, most women are looking to get married, and many want to be married because they want to have children.
Wanting to be married and have children was a need pre-sexual revolution, too. And women were able to more readily achieve that objective because women THEN were gatekeepers of BOTH sex and commitment (i.e., “marriage”). The sexual revolution changed that dynamic such that women are now ONLY gatekeepers to sex, while men have become gatekeepers to commitment, because men no longer need to give commitment to get sex.
That shift in power, which I consider to be detrimental to women, but of course, you can have a different opinion, goes unacknowledged by feminism and that lack of acknowledgment is what I have an issue with. Because lack of acknowledgment means that a fundamental need of WOMEN has been disregarded in favor of acquiring ever more “male privileges” instead of preserving “female privileges” that are necessary to women.
So what’s the solution? My solution has been to reset the sex/relationship dynamic with men. I have sex with a man once I’ve determined he’s worthy to have sex with me. I have sex because I like him and think he’s a good person and find him attractive. He knows this because I’m having sex with him without asking him for anything in return other than his company.
And when I’m in his company, he gets peace, emotional support, a happy, secure, relaxed person to spend time with. He gets a person who accepts his faults and admires his strengths. A person who makes him feel like he can go off and conquer the world.
That feeling he can get only from me when in a relationship with me. So guess what? He’s more than happy to offer me a relationship in exchange for those feelings.
Ruby 96
Karmic #94
Many younger people are delaying marriage, many choose to live together instead, rates of marriage among those who are educated have declined much less than among the less educated. People are waiting longer to get married, but those marriages tend to be longer lasting. Access to birth control has given women the opportunity to be more selective about who they marry. Some women realize that they’d prefer to stay single, even if they have a child. Fewer people may be marrying, but the divorce rate is lower today than it was in 1970. The recession may have had an impact, as well…We all have choices today regarding how we want to live our lives, and while choice may make things more complicated, we’d surely miss it if it were taken away.
You say that men no longer need commitment to get sex, but aren’t you contradicting yourself when you say the solution is to give casual sex with no expectation of commitment? I don’t say this as any sort of judgement of you personally, just that it contradicts your criticism of the sexual revolution.
Paula 97
I just feel humans tend to unnecessarily complicate their lives. I of course want a strong man who is living a life he enjoys and is passionate. I am back at school and it would be foolish to think I wouldn’t want a man that was successful. I think we should just let people be free to explore their goals and dreams and pursue what happiness means to them. If it means having to go against typical gender stereotypes, who cares as long as you are happy. I am in comedy which typically is male dominated. I’m funny and enjoy it. Or men who like to cook. Who cares, just create a happy and fulfilling life. If you want a long term relationship you will have to learn how to be a team player and compromise but I don’t see that as a bad thing. We all have to be team players and be cooperative. It’s a good thing, not a bad thing
Karmic Equation 98
@Ruby 96
“You say that men no longer need commitment to get sex, but aren’t you contradicting yourself when you say the solution is to give casual sex with no expectation of commitment?”
It does sound that way, doesn’t it?
I had to think about what I meant when you phrased it this way…LOL
The fact that men no longer need commitment to get sex was not of my doing. That took a period of time for this shift in behavior to become entrenched. So I’m just stating a fact.
So the question is what am I solving if I’m “giving” sex without commitment?
Well, I think it’s kind of Freudian that you use the word “giving” sex. I usually use the word “having” sex. That difference in word choice tells a lot about your and my difference in mindsets regarding sex. “Giving” sex without commitment isn’t the same as “having” sex without commitment. One feels obligatory(? for lack of better word). The other hedonistic.
So my solution is actually HAVING sex without commitment. But what am I solving <rhetorically to myself>?
I guess I would define the problem as how to create a relationship with a man without making sex an issue.
So my solution is to take sex of the table by HAVING it. In other words, by having sex, I make it a non-issue for the genesis of a relationship. By making sex a non-issue, the man and I can focus our energy on determining whether or not a relationship is worthwhile not whether or not sex is worthwhile.
I believe that men are usually on their best/most-romantic behavior BEFORE “first time” sex and revert back to their “real” selves after the novelty sex with you has worn off. So the sooner I get to see who they “really” are, the sooner I can determine whether they really are worthy of having a relationship with.
You would say, well, you couldn’t do that before sexual revolution. YOu’re right. Neither could YOU. And you STILL DON’T
If the sexual revolution was to liberate women to be f*ck like men (pardon the crudeness), and women’s mindsets PREVENT them from f*cking like men (because we bond to men we f*ck), then the sexual revolution didn’t free MOST women…most women are like you not me, so the sexual revolution serving ME doesn’t matter to womenkind in general.
However, if women can get themselves to separate sex from commitment, my solution works. The men I date aren’t earning “sex” from me, I’ve reset my bar so that men earn a “relationship” from me. They know they can get sex from other women, but they only get a relationship with me only with me. And a relationship with me is nothing like relationships they’ve had before me or after, it appears. As the men I’ve recently dumped (6yr guy and ex-player) continue to reach out to me.
Lest we get confused again, having sex without commitment DOESN’T mean sleeping with a man the minute you meet him and find him attractive. I don’t sleep with a guy until I’ve “deemed him worthy” to have sex with me. That deeming takes time. But once I’ve deemed him worthy, then it doesn’t matter if he’s my bf or not.
Ruby 99
“The sexual revolution changed that dynamic such that women are now ONLY gatekeepers to sex, while men have become gatekeepers to commitment, because men no longer need to give commitment to get sex.”
I simply picked up the word “give” from your statement here, which states that men don’t “give” commitment to get sex anymore. Following through with that semantic logic implies that women “give” sex to get commitment.
I think you are viewing the sexual revolution a very narrow way. As I’ve already posted, it was about much more than freeing women to have sex “like men”, which, I agree, most women do not want to do. And frankly, I’ve met quite a few men who weren’t interested in non-committal sex either. Players tend to get a lot of attention on sites like this because they can be so insidious, but they are not the norm among men.
marymary 100
Ruby, 99
True, they aren’t the norm. Since I cleaned up my roladex I don’t know a single one. Yes, I know they don’t care and it’s just my experience, but if you don’t want that in your life, you don’t have to. Maybe I should rather say they’re the norm for some people, but not for me.
Many good men out there. Of course, not many of us are commenting or blogging about them or writing books about them. They go under the radar in a “no news is good news” sort of way.
Selena 101
marymary#100
“They go under the radar in a “no news is good news” sort of way.”
LOL. Yes. I hear more about ‘players’ on blogs than I’ve ever heard anywhere “in real life”.
Ruby 102
Oops, my earlier message was referencing Karmic’s post #95, and her comment to me in #98, “Well, I think it’s kind of Freudian that you use the word “giving” sex. I usually use the word “having” sex.”
Helen 103
Applauding Ruby here.
Every change brings both good and bad with it. No one expects any social or political change to be 100% for the good. To look at things in absolutes is naive – that it must be 100% good for it to be good at all. Feminism, in either its first, second, or third waves (however we collectively define them), brought so much good to women in general that I am certainly happy it occurred, regardless of whatever changes in “gatekeeping” took place.
Karmic Equation 104
Every change brings both good and bad with it.
That’s all I think feminism needs to do. Acknowledge the bad that went with it.
If we are given the “freedom” to lick the backs of our own knees, but it’s not physically possible to do by anyone but a contortionist, how much does that freedom actually count? Is it even a freedom? If a freedom granted to me frees the other side as well, in a way that goes against my feminine need (a committed relationship), who really gained? Didn’t we just gain a supposed freedom and lose another we already had? Feminists can’t admit that they freed men in a way that was counter to the interests of most women. But perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised? It’s the nature of most women to be unable to admit fault. and feminists are female at heart.
Ruby 105
Karmic #140
“It’s the nature of most women to be unable to admit fault. and feminists are female at heart.”
Huh? Now you have completely lost me with this comment. There’s nothing gender-based about admission of fault. That’s simply your personal bias.
“As the men I’ve recently dumped (6yr guy and ex-player) continue to reach out to me.”
I don’t think it’s unusual that a man you’ve rejected is still into you. We’ve all experienced it. It’s the men who reject us that we tend to want back.
Helen #103
Thank you, I appreciate that.
marymary 106
Feminism has achieved a lot if it finally comes down to when or whether I choose to have sex with someone I like. Women round the world where there are forced marriages, underage marriages, honour killings, no financial independence, no vote, no divorce option, no viable stay-single option, poor career choices and poor education would love to have that problem.
Feminism hasn’t stopped anyone I know from getting married. My whole family married in their twenties and thirties. Most of my straight female friends have been married since their twenties. My gay female friends are as good as married. Even I got married but I do thank feminism that I was able to divorce quite painlessly and with no stigma attached. Though I wish I had been more feminist and not married him just because he asked me. My fault. I admit that freely!
Kathleen 107
# 104
”It’s the nature of most women to be unable to admit fault. and feminists are female at heart”……. This comment is absurd.
Marymary #106
Good post Agreed !
Selena 108
Again with marymary. All the women I know who wanted to be married, either are, or have been.
Karmic, I think because of this many of us just can’t relate to your assertions. Men don’t commit? They are the ‘gatekeepers’ to commitment? It just doesn’t hold up to what we have seen all around us since the sexual revolution started decades ago.
Karmic Equation 109
“Feminism has achieved a lot if it finally comes down to when or whether I choose to have sex with someone I like.”
Women had sex pre-sexual revolution and pre-feminism. Having sex with someone you don’t like is either prostitution or rape. That pre-existed feminism, too. You would think feminism would try to eradicate prostitution and rape, as both those are against women’s interests. But it’s not feminists leading the charge in those areas.
“Though I wish I had been more feminist and not married him just because he asked me.”
That’s not lack of feminism at work but lack of judgment orlack of due-diligence or lack of self-worth.
“My fault. I admit that freely!”
You’ve been through therapy and therapy helps with admission of fault. Because admitting fault allows one to HEAL and to FIX the problem. No admission means no RESPONSIBILITY to fix.
“There’s nothing gender-based about admission of fault. That’s simply your personal bias.”
Really? Not if you read through this blog. It’s almost always the men’s fault or something the man should or should not have done to cause whatever he caused the woman to do or feel. The woman is rarely at fault. It’s not something she did until someone else (like Evan) points it out to her.
“We’ve all experienced it. It’s the men who reject us that we tend to want back.”
Wanting a man who’s shown he doesn’t want you? That shows lack of self-esteem or lack of options. Feminism can’t help with the former and the sexual revolution contributed to the latter.
—–
I’ve agreed many times over that the EQUAL RIGHTS movement of feminism was TERRIFIC for ALL WOMEN.
However, the SEXUAL REVOLUTION part (e.g., advent of birth control and the liberation of women to be able to have sex like a man) — didn’t liberate women, particularly the MARJORITY of whom didn’t know how or didn’t want to have sex like a man. It liberated MEN from responsibility for children, from marriage, it liberated men to have sex with all those newly liberated women, who still wanted and thought that sex=relationship and who still treasured monogamy. And it put MORE responsibility on women…Who is usually responsible for birth control now? Who worries more about getting married? who worries about when to have sex?
The sexual revolution “freedoms” did free a gender, but not the gender that it says it freed. And most people, especially women, don’t see this because they lump the sexual revolution in with the equal rights movement. Call it marketing or call it insidious social programming. But they’re different movements. One did help women. One SUPPOSEDLY helped women, but it didn’t. It helped MEN exponentially more than women. Feminsists won’t cop to that, as Frimmel eloquently says, because
“As soon as a traditional male sex role is not a privilege (having to get married to get sex for instance) but an oppression then all of the foundation of Patriarchy theory starts crumbling.
Any re-examination of what is expected of men that doesn’t support men’s traditional sex role as privilege is anathema.”
marymary 110
On reflection, I think there is a subset of men having a field day with numerous women. They don’t have to get married or commit even to next week to have sex. It’s plausible that they are getting a benefit that feminists didn’t intend.
(They did exist in the old days though. They were called cads.)
Even so, it’s probably better that these men are free to operate as they wish. I don’t see how them being married helps anyone. They aren’t husband material. Yes, some do settle down. When they are ready and make that decision. I don’t think they do so under any duress or because they meet the right woman. They are ready, and then magically meet the right woman. Some never are ready, they don’t want to be or can’t get there. I guess the question is whether we stick around to find out. Me, I know I’m not special enough to change a man or even bring out the best in one so I would not be engaging.
Julia 111
Karmic, your view of feminism is deeply misinformed and it seems like you think men might find you more attractive if you aren’t feminist. None of what you wrote above has any accuracy and is not based on anything historically. Why don’t you just continue to write about the sanctimony of PUA culture.
Karmic Equation 112
@Julia 111
You don’t get it. The “sancitimony of PUA culture” was the PRODUCT of the sexual revolution of which feminists are so proud. So I’ll let YOU espouse upon its benefits for women, as I’m so misinformed.
———-
“On reflection, I think there is a subset of men having a field day with numerous women.”
Almost all ALPHA men are in this subset.
Almost all HIGH-VALUE men are in this subset.
And almost all women want those men.
And generally, most good-looking, employed men will enjoy “dating” more than one woman at a time.
And basically, all men who can, will do so, which are probably the 5′s and overs, although the male 5′s are probably “dating” the 4′s and 3′s in this manner.
All those online men, do you really think they’re ONLY dating you? Are YOU only dating only one of them? Sure, while YOU may remain chaste with him because of your principles and values, doesn’t mean he’s not dating other women without those same principles and values.
And FEW of these men are cads. They’re just MEN. Taking advantage of the smorgasbord of women gifted to them by the sexual revolution.
Julia 113
Well Karmic, in my experience, I’ve been the one dating multiple men while the men I date openly tell me they aren’t dating anyone else. I also don’t seek out 9′s and 10′s because I can be very happy with a 6 or 7 (oh and I am not a 9 or 10 myself, also important to note.) I am not really offended by people sleeping with multiple partners either. I don’t feel like feminism has some how given me the raw end of the deal. For starters, I didn’t really care about finding a life partner while in my 20s because I wanted to concentrate on my career, something feminism has afforded me the opportunity to do. Now I am 31 and I have a boyfriend (who I am pretty damn sure is only sleeping with me) So I don’t feel like I’ve been wronged. Obviously you do, maybe you should work on that so you can be open to a relationship rather than trying to intellectualize why men have sex with multiple women. We can’t worry about someone past, only how they treat us while in a relationship.
Karmic Equation 114
@Julia
You’ve only skimmed my posts or only looked at the last ones…But we’re not the folks that the sexual revolution wronged. We’re the ones it helped or we’re the ones that adapted to it. Whatever you want to call it.
The women who
1) ARE having trouble finding relationships;
2) NOT dating more than one man at a time
3) ARE looking for monogamous LTRs
4) wanting to get married because their clocks are ticking loudly
Those women are not served by the sexual revolution. And they don’t even see that.
I can understand why YOU don’t see it; you benefited from it. As did I.
Karmic Equation 115
@Selena 108
Men as gatekeepers of commitment articles:
http://www.therulesrevisited.com/2013/02/the-analogy-between-sex-and-commitment.html
http://manningupsmart.com/tag/gate-keepers-of-commitment/
Selena 116
@Karmic 115
Thanks for the links. The first I believe I may have already read. The second didn’t impress me as much as it apparently has you. My opinion hasn’t changed.
marymary 117
Karmic 114
Ah, I get it. That brings us full circle to Evan’s conclusion:
“Do what successful men have done for eons; marry “down” a little bit and find a happy marriage with complementary (not necessarily “equal”) roles.”
The women in the scenario you mention need to pick differently, though I think many marriage minded women DID pick differently, they’re just not on relationship sites seeking advice. Alphas are in short supply, and the more alpha we women become, the more scarce alpha males become, as I suppose it’s relative. Even I earn more than the average man. Women could learn to handle an alpha man who likes multiple dating options but there still aren’t enough of them to go around. And I do wonder if it’s worth it.
Helen 118
Karmic, at this point, I can’t help feeling as though you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing, without thinking about whether what you say is really true.
Women certainly don’t have a monopoly on not being able to admit fault. If there’s anything I notice about American women, it’s that they tend to apologize too much. So many women are always starting every sentence with some sort of apology or putting themselves down. Many men are just as incapable of admitting fault; it’s not a gender-specific issue.
The sexual revolution never “stated” it was benefiting one gender, because a revolution doesn’t state things. Hello. One could argue that both genders benefited. Men may have more sex before marriage now, but likewise, women can, and they aren’t stigmatized nearly as much for doing so. Moreover, birth control takes away much of the concern of becoming pregnant from premarital sex.
I must agree with Julia 111 when she wrote: “it seems like you think men might find you more attractive if you aren’t feminist.” Karmic, plenty of feminists – myself included – are loved by men because we are ourselves, happy with ourselves, and happy with them. We don’t see such a division. We’re not constantly trying to fight. We’re happy because we feel free to pursue our lives the way we want. You don’t have to try so hard.
Selena 119
re: 117
Karmic insists most women want an “alpha male”; “a man of HIGH VALUE”. Substitute the word “prince” and it’s the same story that’s been around for hundreds of years. Hundreds of years before feminisim and the sexual revolution I might add.
Tom10 120
I’ll step in to support you KarmicasI don’t see why your posts are being considered controversial – you’re making sense to me. You’re just pointing out some of the unforeseen consequences of sexual equality which have negatively impacted women and benefited men.
It’s not all roses for guys now either though – many of us spend our early years frustrated and celibate, and women expect much more from us than they did in the past. And for every guy out there shagging around there seems to be another three or four getting nothing. And even for those who are able to shag around it’s really hard work.
On balance though I believe that feminism has been hugely beneficial to women, men and society, so much so that I consider myself an ardent feminist. The only problem I have with some feminists are those (like my sister) who believe that the only valid choice for a woman to make is to get a degree and become a doctor or lawyer or some other similar job. As in becoming a model or an adult actress is somehow letting the team down. This is another unforeseen consequence of the sexual revolution – the active participation of women in the sexualization of society. I.e. I don’t think feminists ever anticipated some women would actually choose to become nude models and porn stars of their own volition. In my opinion a woman’s choice to become a model is as equal to choose to become a doctor.
Selena #108
“All the women I know who wanted to be married, either are, or have been.”
Without even thinking I could name about twenty women I know in their late 20’s and 30’s who aren’t married and just can’t get a satisfactory relationship even though they would really like one. Heck I could name almost twenty posters off this blog alone who are in this category – isn’t that why Evan has this blog? I know of several who have low self-esteem and high levels of anxiety about facing the possibility of having no children or a family. On the flip-side I know so many men the same age having the time of their lives looking for the ‘perfect woman’. I believe this trend is more pronounced in the younger generations because of the education gap between men and women is greater at that age – and that this affect will become even more exacerbated in years to come as women become more and more educated. I.e. the pool of eligible (equally educated) men is shrinking year after year as women become better educated, thus leading to more single successful women. The men that do meet the standard will become even sluttier and picky I guess.
Tom10 121
*effect not affect – aargh!
Julia 122
@Tom10
“You’re just pointing out some of the unforeseen consequences of sexual equality which have negatively impacted women and benefited men.”
I still don’t understand how this has negatively impacted women. Sex isn’t a game where a woman loses and a man wins, When people consent to having sex with one another, they both understand what sex is. I’ve had casual sex, more than several times and you know what? It felt like sex, it was physically pleasing, more often than not that was that and there was nothing to be lost. Now if you think sex=nabbing a husband, then I guess that’s a losing strategy but I’ve honestly never met a woman who believed that to be the case. Maybe this is a generational difference but I don’t see young women viewing sex very different than young men.
Helen 123
Tom10: You and I have usually agreed with each other in these comments, but this is the point you’ve brought up several times that I just can’t get on board with: “the unforeseen consequences of sexual equality which have negatively impacted women and benefited men.”
So if you would please clarify: What exactly are the negative impacts to women? If it is just that men see them as cheapened if they have premarital sex, isn’t that your own judgment against such women, which really isn’t fair (hello double standard)? Then these women will simply go for the men who DON’T judge them that way, and there are plenty who don’t.
It’s like in other posts, when you’ve responded to my points about asking men out (which I do in business contexts, and I ask my husband out in romantic contexts, as he does me). What is so bad about that? Your responses have always been along the lines of that a woman cheapens herself when she asks a guy out because she appears too desperate and gives too much. That seems to show some misunderstanding of a woman’s viewpoint. The times I ask men out, it’s because I want something from THEM: a collaboration, some knowledge, some information, connections, etc. Men have never, to my knowledge, minded this, and I nearly always get what I want. If they avoid me afterwards because I asked them out, then to be honest, I wouldn’t mind. They have issues that no one has time to deal with in today’s world.
Times are changing, Tom, and people follow your cues. If you’re comfortable with yourself and your actions, others are likely to be as well. This is true even if a woman asks a man out. Truthfully, all I’ve seen is that men go gaga over happy and confident women.
Ruby 124
Karmic #109
“You would think feminism would try to eradicate prostitution and rape, as both those are against women’s interests. But it’s not feminists leading the charge in those areas.”
You can’t be serious. When the Steubenville high school boys were convicted and CNN gave the boys a sympathetic portrayal in their TV coverage, it’s been organizations like the Ms. Foundation for Women and feminist blogs like Feministe that have spoken up. That’s just one example that is top of mind because I’ve been reading about it just today, but there are many, many others. The fact that you could make that statement tells me how poorly informed you are. Have you actually read any feminist history or literature, or do you just read critiques of feminism?
“Not if you read through this blog. It’s almost always the men’s fault or something the man should or should not have done to cause whatever he caused the woman to do or feel. The woman is rarely at fault. It’s not something she did until someone else (like Evan) points it out to her.”
I’ve seen the same thing coming from men on blogs devoted to the manosphere. I even see it coming from many of the men who post on EMK’s blog. And these men are often very nasty in their beliefs about women, and in their blaming of them. Neither sex has a monopoly on fault-finding.
“Wanting a man who’s shown he doesn’t want you? That shows lack of self-esteem or lack of options. Feminism can’t help with the former and the sexual revolution contributed to the latter.”
You’re right, this has nothing to do with feminism or the sexual revolution, as these sorts of feelings have existed since the dawn of time. Even though it still hurts to be rejected, women (and men) today have many more options in terms of finding partners then they did in a time when you were limited to the men who lived in your immediate area, and of whom your family approved. That’s due in part to technology. I was responding to your belief that the fact that men you’ve dumped continue to reach you makes you somehow exceptional. I’m saying it doesn’t, and is a common occurrence.
Ruby 125
Second to last line should read, “I was responding to your belief that the fact that men you’ve dumped continue to reach out to you makes you somehow exceptional”.
Tom10 126
Julia
“I still don’t understand how this has negatively impacted women…when people consent to having sex with one another, they both understand what sex is.”
But you, Helen, Karmic Equation and Ruby are all confident and secure women speaking from a place where you have the emotional capacity to deal the consequences of the choices you make. You have all gained from feminism. But for every one of you there is another emotionally vulnerable woman out there who hasn’t been able to attain this level of understanding. I’ve met these women in person and read their comments on this blog. I don’t want to name names but we all know who I’m talking about. You understand what sex is about but for some women sex is more than just sex. Sex is a big deal and when they run into men like me for whom sex is just sex these women seem to suffer emotionally.
I know that you will argue that these women have always existed but I believe in previous generations social stigma afforded these women a certain level of protection from men for whom sex is just sex. Those men have gained the ability to have sex with these women with impunity and without judgement whereas those women have lost out because they are in a more vulnerable position now.
“Now if you think sex=nabbing a husband, then I guess that’s a losing strategy but I’ve honestly never met a woman who believed that to be the case”
This maybe true but I have met many women who believe that because a guy is having sex with her he must really like her, when in reality he might be totally indifferent and it was just sex.
“I don’t see young women viewing sex very different than young men”
I agree to a certain extent, however, I believe that after a certain age – say mid to late twenties – the penny begins to drop with women that sex for men and women is different.
Helen
“If you would please clarify? What exactly are the negative impacts to women? If it is just that men see them as cheapened if they have premarital sex, isn’t that your own judgement against such women?”
Well I certainly don’t judge women for having sex with whoever they want. My comment to Julia above explains it – perhaps I should have said negatively impacted ‘some’ (emotionally vulnerable) women and benefited ‘some’ men.
“It’s like in other posts, when you’ve responded to my points about asking men out. What is so bad about that? Your responses have always been along the lines of that a woman cheapens herself when she asks a guy out because she appears too desperate and gives too much”
Well ‘cheapened’ and ‘desperate’ are the wrong terms. I don’t thing there’s anything fundamentally wrong with asking a man out and I don’t think women who do so are cheapening themselves or are desperate. I think asking your husband out in a romantic context is different from the initial stages of dating (say the first three months). For me dating is a game like poker and each party needs to play their hand as well as they can. Each party needs to feel like they’ve got a great deal or else they’ll always yearn for better. I know whenever I’ve met fantastic women who intimidate me I’ve turned into a simpering lapdog and turned them off. I played my cards badly. Now when I meet these women I force myself to treat them as if they were just ordinary women. The same goes for women – they need to play their cards correctly in order to gauge a man’s interest and inspire him to see what a catch she is. I think Karmic Equation has this ‘girl game’ at a high level.
I normally agree with most of your points as well, and I don’t actively disagree with anything Ruby or Julia has said on this thread. I agree that times are changing are I wholeheartedly support all the changes.
Selena 127
Julia: “Now if you think sex=nabbing a husband, then I guess that’s a losing strategy but I’ve honestly never met a woman who believed that to be the case. “
Thanks for the smile this morning.
Perhaps it was generational at one time. Not in mine and I’m 20 years older than you. I think even my mother who has been married since 1960 might describe such a strategy as being quaint.
Yes Tom, I’ve no doubt there are some women who do associate sex with getting a husband, but in 2013 US culture I believe they are a minority. Possibly they need to be educated that men do not necessarily see sex the same way, and that’s what EMK tries to do here- as well as some of the commenters.
But just because such women exist, does not mean the sexual revolution had an unforeseen negative impact on women which has been a repeated assertion on this thread.
Frimmel 128
Tom10 in #126– “I think Karmic Equation has this ‘girl game’ at a high level.”
Couldn’t agree more on that one Tom10 especially as outlined in #98– ” By making sex a non-issue, the man and I can focus our energy on determining whether or not a relationship is worthwhile not whether or not sex is worthwhile.” I’m looking for a girlfriend but I’m not adverse to a hook-up. It is in both of our best interests to figure out what we’re having early on.
I’d suggest women keep that in mind along with everything in the “Men look for sex and find love” article. Us non-alphas aren’t shagging everything that strikes our fancy but it isn’t that hard to find a willing woman. You need to give us a reason other than sex to want to be with you — see the article on the woman still peeved about the strippers for ways NOT to do it.
Karmic Equation 129
@Tom 10
Thanks for the support
“I don’t think feminists ever anticipated some women would actually choose to become nude models and porn stars of their own volition. In my opinion a woman’s choice to become a model is as equal to choose to become a doctor.”
I never thought of it that way, but I agree…and if you stretch it a tad, men benefited yet again from the models’ and porn stars’ choices. More eye candy and more porn movies. Whicn leads me to question, and I wonder if there is info on this…I wonder at the “status/value” of the men who considered themselves feminists. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a correlation between the high-status/high-value men being supporters of feminism and men not meeting that criteria who wouldn’t support feminism. High-value/high-status men benefitted the most from having sexually liberated women out in the world.
“On the flip-side I know so many men the same age having the time of their lives looking for the ‘perfect woman’.”
Exactly what I was driving at.
Helen 118 & Julia 111
I don’t know where you gals get that “it seems like you think men might find you more attractive if you aren’t feminist.”
In NONE of my posts have I ever put the words feminism or attractiveness together. Don’t project please. If YOU think feminism makes you less attractive don’t spin it that because I don’t believe in feminism that I believe I’m more attractive.
Feminism has nothing to do with my attractiveness or yours.
“You don’t have to try so hard.”
This is at least the second time you’ve accused me of this. You don’t seem to get that I’m not “trying” at all. Which probably means you see being “feminine” as work. I’m feminine without trying. Sorry to burst your bubble. I’m also masculine without trying. What I avoid doing (I do have to be mindful of this, although it’s not hard to do) is being “masculine” with a man I find attractive at the early stages of dating. He sees my feminine side until he’s my bf. Once he’s my bf, I gradually let out my “alpha-ness” bit by bit. At that point what could have been construed as “bitchiness” at the onset of dating, is accepted, and even appreciated as part of my “fire” once we’ve become a couple.
“You have only one chance to make a first impression.” — I just make sure that feminine image of me is his first impression of me. That goes a long way to his simply rolling his eyes at me with loving exasperation (instead of perceiving me as a bitch) when I get a little bossy now and then once we’ve become a couple.
marymary 117
Yes. That is it. Those women need to pick differently, but they don’t want to. They haven’t adapted or don’t want to adapt.
My last three relationships were alpha (husband); beta (6yr ltr); and alpha (7-months LTR; but if you include when “relations” started, it would be a year). The happiest relationship I’ve ever had was with the beta man. He wasn’t ambitious, but was employed. He did things around the house that I hated doing (like emptying the dishwasher and putting away left overs). He packed more clothes on vacations that I did. Owned more sneakers than I did shoes. He taught me that you can’t wear this color blue jeans with that color shirt because blue jeans with a “green” tinge can’t be worn with blue shirts (news to me since I thought blue jeans were considered “neutral” colored). LOL. He wasn’t gay, I assure you. All man in the BR. I loved him totally.
Selena 116
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said I was “impressed”. Those articles were to show you that gatekeeping wasn’t a term I invented.
This article was the basis on which the two posts I linked to were based: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/01/01/relationshipstrategies/7-reasons-women-reject-eager-men/
Again, “impressed” is not why I’m listing the post. Just documenting where the terms come from and different perspectives.
Julia 130
@Karmic quite the opposite, in the area and kind of men I date feminism is most definitely an attractive quality. I’m not looking for partners at an evangelical church singles night. I am also not the one who has written volumes justifying herself and her beliefs. Almost every post seems to devolve into you justifying your existence and I’m not sure why you feel the need to.
Can we agree that some women, not most women have suffered because of different attitudes towards sex and sexuality thanks to feminism where as most men and women, including those who do need lead traditional heteronormative monogamous lives, have gained from it? In more ways than just having sex?
Selena 131
Karmic, I never did think you made up the phrase: “Women are the gatekeepers to sex. Men are the gatekeepers to commitment.”
I’ve read it before on forums – always coming from male commenters. I knew they got it from some writing floating about in manosphere. And I always thought it was a silly thing to say. That is: they are the ‘gatekeepers’ until the woman they want to commit to tells them she doesn’t want to be exclusive. Or his girlfriend. Or move in with him. Or be his wife. It’s easy to imagine yourself a gatekeeper until you find someone who doesn’t want to go through your gate. Then what?
You are the first woman I’ve seen use this phrase which is why I felt you were more impressed by these type of ideas than I.
What I have seen over and over and over is at whatever level of commitment- we choose each other.
Karmic Equation 132
@Julia
You’re right it’s impossible to espouse a non-mainstream idea to sheeple. So I shall stop after this final post because bashing my head against a brick wall doesn’t do me any good. If y’all want to be sheeple and think as society (which is run by men, btw) tells you to think, who am I to stop you?
No I do NOT agree with you, because you and all the women who have been debating with me have defended feminism by justifying the sexual revolution benefits with benefits of the equal rights movement (i.e., equal pay for equal work — which btw still has NOT come to pass — but we’ll let that go). The sexual revolution and the equal rights movement are NOT the same.
None of you have debated the sexual revolution on it’s own merits. Because you can’t. You CANNOT defend against the premise that men benefitted MORE from the sexual revolution than women because it’s the truth.
(A) Women are freed to have sex like men, yet most women can’t or won’t do that.
(B) Women are freed from having unwanted children with birth control. That was done pre-sexual revolution via abstinence. That can still be done via abstinence. We didn’t need BC to avoid unwanted children.
(C) So, the real benefit of birth control was to allow women to have sex with impugnity (no children, hence no stigma). So with whom are they having sex with impugnity? Other women? No, other men. So you don’t think MEN benefited from this impugnity? Men benefited from unwanted children with abstinence, right? Abstinence is free, too. So why don’t feminists preach abstinence? That actually WOULD help all women, even me. My toy would be happier, but probably not my men.
So the sexual revolution isn’t helping women when it comes to sex, it’s helping men. Unintentionally. It’s the truth even if you don’t want to admit it.
Teresa 133
Karmic
I am sure you think what you believe is the truth but in reality it’s just your opinion. As all who post here are doing they are expressing their opinion
Volumes have been written about the sexual revolution -feminist movement etc. among the experts there is no agreement about these issues and yet you have it all figured out? LOL
Evan Marc Katz 134
Y’all can beat up on Karmic but, from a man’s perspective, she GETS it, and is likely an incredible girlfriend because she doesn’t try to change men based on her insecurities.
Everything else – about the meaning of feminism and the sexual revolution – is just noise.
The point of this blog is to teach women to accept good men (despite their flaws) and to get rid of men who exhibit unacceptable behavior.
As stated ad nauseum, going to a bachelor party should be considered acceptable, presuming this isn’t weekly behavior. On the other hand, you can find a man who never so much as THINKS of another woman, never flirts, doesn’t have a past, etc, but it doesn’t really matter if he isn’t attracted to you, doesn’t call you, doesn’t communicate well, and doesn’t want to commit.
You can hold out for the men who never flirt, never talk to ex’s, never do “guy things” with their friends, and generally act perfect (which is to say “the manner in which YOU want him to act), but in my experience, there are a miniscule number of men who do EXACTLY what you want them to do. So your better bet is to be accepting of the kind, generous, loyal ones (like me), as opposed to telling men like me that we’re bad, wrong, or need to stop “hurting” you simply because we don’t ONLY have eyes for you. As long as we don’t ACT on those desires, you’re safe.
And the more you act jealous, judgmental, fearful and controlling by telling him what he’s ALLOWED to do, the fewer men will want to commit to that regimen for life.
It’s straightforward advice. It’s consistent. I don’t know of a single guy who wants a woman to police his thoughts, his past, his phone or his Facebook page. And the more you protest, the more you make the division between you and Karmic all the more apparent.
You’re not “wrong” for feeling what you’re feeling. I will simply point out that, objectively, Karmic is going to be FAR more effective in understanding and connecting with men. Do with that what you will.
Selena 135
I think most of us get Karmic’s ideas about being a great girlfriend. And agree with them. It’s some of her other ideas that have been challenged on this particular thread. Just this sheeple’s opinion.
Karmic Equation 136
Thanks, Evan.
@Selena 119
I agree with you Selena. There are princes out there.
Ruby 137
EMK #134
“Everything else – about the meaning of feminism and the sexual revolution – is just noise.’
This particular blog post was about the book titled,”The End of Men and The Rise of Women”, which discusses the gains made by women, and men’s response to that, not men going to bachelor parties, talking to exes, guys who don’t call you back, or someone else’s theories (besides yours) on being a good girlfriend. There are plenty of other blog posts here devoted to those topics.
Selena #135
“It’s some of her other ideas that have been challenged on this particular thread. Just this sheeple’s opinion.”
Yep, thanks.
Selena 138
No Ruby, thank you. I thought I was the only one who noticed that this was the book review thread, (discuss the theories presented)- not the stripper thread or one of the many how-to-be-a good-girlfriend threads.
Helen 139
Ruby and Selena: agreed. Evan 134, love you, love your blog, but in this particular case, I felt that you were going off on an unfair rant against the women who were posting specifically to this thread. We said nothing against bachelor parties, flirting, or anything else. In all honesty, I find such concerns to be frivolous and petty as well.
What was more at stake in these conversations was the benefit that the feminist movement provided. This, I believe, goes much deeper than some of the other discussions carried on in other threads. In particular, I’d like to acknowledge Ruby for her contributions on that: her comments, because they aren’t dramatic, tend to get less notice; but they’re scholarly and well thought-out. Her understanding of the feminist movement is much broader, and deeper, than some of the others whose views you supported. There is no one definition of feminism, and a lot of extreme viewpoints were taken that don’t really do this movement credit.
If you are fundamentally in opposition to some of the points about feminism described here, then we will just have to agree to disagree. Otherwise, we really weren’t talking about bachelor parties, jealousy, flirting, or anything like that, so it’s apples vs. oranges.
Anita 140
Steve@73: Um, because it’s wrong to oppress other people so that you can get more stuff?
Frimmel 141
Oppressed? I’ll assume you mean ‘women’ are oppressed. So Anita (or anyone really) explain to me the government enforced OBLIGATIONS that ONLY women have.
Alternately, explain to me the government enforced RIGHTS that ONLY men have.
Keep in mind that the army is opening up combat roles to women but women don’t have to register with selective service in case of a draft.
Women are not obligated to get pregnant and abortion while perhaps not as accessible and unrestricted as some would like is legal.
So, leaving those well worn paths aside please help me to understand the oppressions faced by the strong, smart, successful, women in the United States. Explain how an oppressed woman with no voice in society can get a book published about the end of men. Help Steve and I understand how women are not in fact oppressing men so that women might have more stuff.
Kathleen 142
Frimmel 141
arguing with you I expect would be tiresome
Oppressions against women are sometimes covert. I went to a company meeting last week and there was an obvious absence of women management at the exec level .A high level female at Facebook talked about this still persisting throughout American Corporations (on 60 mins maybe a week ago).
Women still earn less for the same jobs
Then theres is obvious bias like after the Stub rape trial. CNN presents how the boys who raped will have their lives ruined by the justice system ( The victim wasn’t mentioned)
If you think because women are moving into a place of more equality, we are therefore oppressing men, you have a scarcity mentality. No amount of logic could change that type of thinking.
Ruby I enjoy your posts
Michelle 143
I’m a woman working in a professional capacity. Most women make decisions that are focused on their family, which may hold them back from climbing the ladder. Not all women OR all men are able to climb the corporate ladder due to skill & intelligence, even if they wanted to. There are reasons there aren’t more women in these roles other than ‘the man’ is keeping them down. I would even go as far to say that there are specific efforts in many large companies to hire COMPETENT women in prominant and visible positions.
Women have never had more opportunity in the U.S. than today. Go live in some Islamic country and let us know how much freedom and opportunity women have there. Heck, go to Japan and look through the want ads and see how they advertise for positions.
Some people just like to continuously play the victim. Often, it’s a business for them.
Ruby 144
Kathleen & Helen
Thank you! I enjoy your posts as well.
Kathleen 145
Michelle #143
Are you calling me a victim?
Just because women don’t get stoned to death in this country doesn’t mean there is complete equality in the US for women .
Ive been a successful woman in my career, but have not had children as is the case with other friends of mine, including lawyers . I have left companies who did not promote women within their ranks, and when I left those companies I took my customers with me to the next company. I have won settlements against a company with covert discrimination and I helped other women in that organization to win settlements
Some people just like to close their eyes and dwell in status quo.
Julia 146
@Michelle
Just looking at the coverage with the Steubenville verdict this past week and you will see all is not equal. I’ve been followed to my home by strange men more than once, scared out of my mind and the NY Times ran a scathing piece on women with protective orders against boyfriends/spouses/ex’s who get murdered because the state won’t honor their requests to take guns from the men who’ve threatened them. Until all of this doesn’t happen things aren’t the same. I’m not going to say to the woman whose ex-husband put a gun in her mouth that she should look up because at least she wasn’t stoned to death.
Frimmel 147
How does being the victim of a crime mean the victim’s class is oppressed? Men are the victims of crimes but are not considered oppressed.
In Steubenville the perpetrators were brought to trial, found guilty and are being punished for their crime. How does his represent oppress of women? Why would anyone care about crimes against an oppressed class? There were public protests and activism to bring the crime to trial. That’s a sign of oppression?
Timmy 148
LOL @ 142.
“I went to a company meeting last week and there was an obvious absence of women management at the exec level.”
And you infer oppression from that? I walked into a psychology class the other day and 90% of the students were female. Oppression against men is sometimes covert
Re: the CNN story, if that’s your idea of oppression, you live a pretty cushy life. I think it worth nothing that the perps are juveniles. That’s why they got the bleeding heart treatment from CNN, not because they are male. How many sympathetic portraits of adult rapists do you see? And I can point to a million media stories that annointed rape victims as saints. Doe Duke lacrosse and Crystal Gail Mangum (who went on to murder her boyfriend) ring a bell?
Kathleen 149
Frimmel and Timmy 147 and 148
If you believe there is absolutely no gender bias in America and there is complete equality between the sexes I doubt Ill change that belief.
I remember being asked by a male CEO when I was being interviewed, “how was it for me being a woman in the business world?” I nearly started laughing because I was thinking of saying that when I was a male it was one way, but after my sex change I observed things were another way. Lucky I didn’t say that and I got the job. In my personal experience as a woman there is still bias.
What I take from Evans original article ( for women) is that women can be open to a guy who maybe viewed as less successful than her in her personal love relationships.
Im a strong feminist, love men, never have had a need to put men down because I want equality of rights. Im disappointed in women who do not understand feminism, claim its about putting men down, or they betray other females as the women CNN reporters did when they sympathized with the rapists with no mention of the woman violated.
Ruby 150
Timmy #148
“I think it worth nothing that the perps are juveniles. That’s why they got the bleeding heart treatment from CNN, not because they are male.”
Newsflash, Timmy, the victim was a juvenile too.
Frimmel 151
Yes, and victims of rape and alleged victims of rape typically and especially if juvenile, have their names kept out of the media. What sort of bleeding heart treatment for the victim would you like? What would you have the media say? Since when is factual information, which should be the purview of new organizations ‘sympathy?’ She got her justice. Rather seemed like graciousness in victory to me.
And you know in twenty years no one will care that a rape victim is living next door there is no stigma to being a victim, no stigma to sex outside or before marriage. The girl didn’t even remember what happened. I suspect that the pursuit of justice has been more horrific than the crime considering that the crime is such because she was insensate. (Please don’t take this as “rape apology.”) It is very likely she will be able to heal and move on.
The boys on the other hand will find their neighbors do care that a registered sex offender is living next door. These boys will very likely find themselves unemployable and in some states unable to find housing since sex offenders can’t live within so many feet of a school or park or playground. I find it very likely these boys will find themselves the victims of violence and threats once they’ve been punished.
And what would be the motivation of those threats and that violence? How will that be justified? It will be justified as women are to be protected and valued and that lessons need taught to those who would harm women.
Would that be covert female oppression?
Karmic Equation 152
I didn’t follow the stories in question, but I believe rape shield laws prevent mention of rape victims’s names without consent. And then there are also laws protecting juvenile victims of crimes in general. So there may have been legal reasons why victims’ names weren’t mentioned. And if the names can’t be mentioned then they really can’t be reported on, because any “compassionate” details, “girl was the youngest of 5 children, who was the lead in her church choir, and volunteers her time to help disabled toddlers” — would give away enough info to identify her, which would violate the rape shield laws. So, I’m not sure if the media are actually to blame for not mentioning the victim.
Ruby 153
Frimmel
I wasn’t saying that the victim should have been identified in the media. The sympathy for the perpetrators was unnecessary, period, that is the point. Yes, they were juveniles, but they didn’t have a problem plastering social media with images and descriptions of their crimes, including nude photos of the girl. One of the boys even stated that his biggest concern was being kept off the football team, rather than with the girl. Friends of the boys were caught on video laughing and joking about the crime. What happened to those boys was the consequence of the crime they committed. Got it now?
Frimmel 154
“The sympathy for the perpetrators was unnecessary, period, that is the point.”
Oh I get that. I simply find it rather sad so many feel that way.
Yes, those boys brought it on themselves but they were also failed in a number of ways by a number of people. (I think that the girl was also failed in a number of ways by a number of those same people.) And if we only see their wrong behavior and do so without a shred of empathy we won’t really learn the lessons we need so we can prevent this sort of thing from repeating itself.
Karmic Equation 155
@Ruby
But we’re in America, where the “alleged” perpetrators are “innocent until proven guilty”.
In this case, I am just arguing to argue. Your outrage is justified if the perps were indeed treated with sympathy instead of neutrality by the media.
@Frimmel
I do agree with Ruby that what has/will happen with those boys are the consequences of the crime they committed. The saying “if you can’t do the time, don’t do crime” is more than applicable in this case. And there’s another saying “Ignorance of the law doesn’t exempt you from it.”
I have much more sympathy for the Duke Lacrosse team. They didn’t deserve what happened to them. Even though they were vindicated, the stigma will stay with them.
I would more agree with you used the anecdote that if some drunk guy took a whiz in a school zone where no children were about and got busted for “indecent exposure” (I believe this is a true story) — that that guy doesn’t deserve the stigma of being labeled a “sex offender”.
These boys deserve their treatment. The girl may not be stigmatized by society and may even forget about what happened since she didn’t even remember it happened in the first place. But that doesn’t alleviate the boys from the responsibility of their actions nor mitigate their consequences.
——————–
While I “don’t like” SOME things that feminism have done/are doing…none of what they have done (or not done) are criminal by any stretch of the imagination.
Let’s not go there. That’s really not what we should be debating on this thread.
Ruby 156
Karmic #155
“But we’re in America, where the “alleged” perpetrators are “innocent until proven guilty”.
In this case, I am just arguing to argue. Your outrage is justified if the perps were indeed treated with sympathy instead of neutrality by the media.”
The boys have already been convicted. Here’s some info about the crime, if you’re interested: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/03/exclusive-steubenville-teens-on-tape-describe-night-of-sexual-assault/
Anita 157
Kathleen@149: Thanks for this!!! I cannot even begin to tell you how many both overt and covert incidents of bias I have experienced in the workplace and how they have affected me. When I talk to other women about their experiences it’s the same thing with them. I used to think it was just me, that if I were different either the men wouldn’t behave/talk like this or I wouldn’t let it affect me. I now know that this is bullocks, and this kind of behavior/talk must stop. I am also surprised (still!) by how many good men simply DO NOT GET IT. They do not get it unless it affects them personally or unless they are empathic people. My boyfriend never experiences this kind of thing and he doesn’t always see it when it’s happening. E.g., he was in a small and select PhD program and it was only years later that he noticed it was only men. When I asked him why he didn’t have an answer. I could tell him why, and it wasn’t because the men were better than the women because of biology or some other such nonsense. It was the small little anti-women comments from the all-male professors, it was the lauding of the men and the ignoring of the women, it was the assignment of little perks and opportunities to the male students and not the female students, it was the lack of female participation in his field for centuries–because they weren’t allowed to participate. It’s hard to explain the cyclical nature of discrimination, especially to people who don’t see it. Once it starts to affect you, though, you begin to see it. That’s why all of these white guys saying “hey, that isn’t fair that that woman/black guy/black woman got that job/degree over me–I’m better than they are!” Well, that’s the way that the oppressed folks have been feeling for centuries, white dude. Glad you’re finally getting it! Happy to report that my guy is getting it. Now, when he’s teaching his classes one student will ask, invariably, why are there only men in this field? And he’ll say “women were not allowed to participate until recently.” So I say that men are becoming more traditionally “feminine”–even though I wouldn’t use that word to describe people who are sensitive, caring, and psychologically and emotionally aware. I call that human.
JoeK 158
@Anita #157
But please tell me how is this “bias” (non-confirmed by the way, only anecdotally stated by you) evidence of oppression?
Sorry, but bias =/= oppression.
Try again.
Oh, and in my experience in the working world? Women are overpaid.
In my field (one with very few women), women are routinely employed beyond their abilities, and paid far more than equivalent skills in men would command. I wasn’t the first to notice this, as a matter of fact it was pointed out to me by a female coworker (a good friend) many years ago. At the time she was far less capable than I was, but was paid 2x as much. Today she probably makes 4x what I do…just for being a woman in a male-dominated field.
There’s my anecdote demonstrating how I was oppressed!
Kathleen 159
Anita 157
Thank you.
JC 160
What men get or don’t get out of feminism is irrelevant. What women choose to do with their lives is up to the women themselves, and men can’t do anything to change that. Women are protected as equal to men under the laws and on a daily basis more and more women are choosing to live with men as equals. If men don’t like that, the men can change. If they do like that, no problem. It is highly unlikely that women will ever agree to go back to being owned and dominated by men, just as it is highly unlikely that blacks will agree to be slaves again.
Anita 161
JoeK@158: What you describe as having happened to you is what happens to women and ethnic minorities every day. If you don’t like the experience and think it’s unfair, perhaps you could examine some of the causes of bias and discrimination in the world and think up some ways to address these problems in the workplace. Discuss it with your HR people. There are lots of great diversity programs out there, lots of ways to make our workplaces more representative of the population at large. You might even find that you like working with women and people of different backgrounds more than you like working in a heterogenous male-dominated environment. Consider it. It’s an interesting and rewarding journey.
Anita 162
JoeK again, if Evan will permit and others will forgive a double post. Over the last few years I’ve noticed a big change at work in the folks coming up. There are more women and more people of both genders of all skin colors, religions, and shapes and sizes moving up through the ranks. They went to great schools, often on scholarship; they work hard and know their stuff. They aren’t angry or scared of men or white people–neither do they exude any sense of entitlement. They are just normal people, working hard and getting ahead. What this means to me is that any employer who still carries any gender or ethnic bias is going to lose out in the long term. These non-white and/or non-male folks are bringing with them a lot of untapped talent, and they will be able to find plenty of places willing to pay them for that talent. It’s not that systems of privilege are breaking down–they’ve already broken down. It just takes a little while till you see it out there in the world. By the next generation I predict that even this discussion will seem very antiquated.
JoeK 163
@Anita161 & 162
You missed my sarcasm that:
1. Bias is not oppression
and
2. Anecdotes don’t prove anything (my anecdotal experience clearly doesn’t reflect the working world as a whole, as anyone with any sense, or ability to read studies, knows).
Frimmel 164
If you can hire women for less money than men and get the same work, why do men have jobs? What company would be able to afford to hire men? What company could afford the extra 25% in labor costs?
“Here’s an extra quarter on the dollar over the girls, boys. For The Patriarchy!!!! Muuuuwhahahahhahahahaha!!!!”
http://womensissues.about.com/od/womenintheworkforce/a/GenderPayGapClosing.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364905899&sr=8-1&keywords=why+men+earn+more
JustMe 165
I am one week away from finishing my bachelors degree. In ever class I have ever had that addressed discrimination (which is part of our discussion about oppression) every single professor has claimed that discrimination is still apart of our society. Granted, not like it was 20 years ago but still there. In fact, one class we watched a dateline/60 minutes segement where the report was about three situations where they taped the different treatment men and women get. Every thing was exactly the same, the only change was the gender. Watching that was when I realized it does still happen.
Maybe it was their bias and anecdotal evidence talking. . . .
michelle 166
Humans discriminate, we discriminate every single day about one thing or another. Frankly, there’s quite a money making ‘business’ in discrimination isn’t there?
Anita 167
JoeK@163: No, I did not miss that.
Ruby 168
Frimmel
“If you can hire women for less money than men and get the same work, why do men have jobs? What company would be able to afford to hire men? What company could afford the extra 25% in labor costs?”
The thinking is that employers are paying women xx% less than the going rate, not paying men xx% more than what is standard.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1983185,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2012/10/24/gender-pay-gap/1652511/
Frimmel 169
That doesn’t answer my question, Ruby.
If women will work for less or you can otherwise get away with paying them less than the going rate, why would you hire a man? If men and women are doing the same job and the women can be paid less, how does it benefit you to hire men? Why would you do so? How could you stay in business doing so?
If I were a construction company and could get all female crews at 20% or whatever less than male crews, I could under bid jobs by 10% or more over my competitors and have more work than I could do and be pocketing extra profit. But no one is doing that or anything like that, why?
I would also argue that your suggestion is then a source for the flat wages for everyone since the 70′s. You pay women less than the standard rate so then a man who wants a job has to work for that lesser rate, then another women comes along and works for less again then men and women can’t afford to do those jobs but now there are more men for the jobs women won’t do pushing those wages down.
Every year, 92% of workplace fatalities in the US happen to men. Women might not have equal wages (please note my first link above where they are starting to earn more) but neither are they equally dead. No one seems to give a crap that more women aren’t miners or loggers or on the decks of fishing boats but the derth of female CEO’s makes the cover of USA today. What’s the most dangerous thing you’ve ever had to do on a job, Ruby?
Some men are CEO’s, most men are not. Isn’t that the fundamental underpinning of Evan’s advice here? Most men are not the top of the food chain alpha males.
Even among the strong smart successful women here, men are expected to pay for the first several dates. How many unemployed men have you been out with since leaving college? Why do my dating profiles always get more traffic when I increase my claimed income? Do men have to pay for dates because they earn more or do they earn more because they have to pay for dates?
Ruby 170
Frimmel
And you haven’t bothered to read the articles I posted. Maybe because they don’t support your “theories”? You’d find many of your questions answered there, except for the ones where you compare apples to oranges (wait, that’s all your questions), and start to spin off into angry rants about the “inequality” of dating.
Few women may want to work as miners, but few men want to be house-husbands. Occupational deaths are preventable, so the solution isn’t that more women should die entering more dangerous fields, so that more men may live. Women make up only 5% of the prison population, too. Would you say that’s also due to discrimination?
Even your first article stated, “Women don’t fare so well is in cities where male-dominated industries such as software development or technology-based military contracting are the backbone of the economy. Women also fall on the wrong side of the gender wage gap when they don’t meet the criteria of being under 30, unmarried, childless, and city dwellers. Women who are married or live in small towns continue to earn less than men.”
From Time.com: “Women earned less than men in all 20 industries and 25 occupation groups surveyed by the Census Bureau in 2007 — even in fields in which their numbers are overwhelming. Female secretaries, for instance, earn just 83.4% as much as male ones. And those who pick male-dominated fields earn less than men too: female truck drivers, for instance, earn just 76.5% of the weekly pay of their male counterparts.”
There’s more, “U.S. women still earned only 77 cents on the male dollar in 2008, according to the latest census statistics. (That number drops to 68% for African-American women and 58% for Latinas.) And despite the earnings premium that comes with greater education, women with bachelor’s degrees earn less over 15 years than men with a high school diploma or less, according to the IWPR study.”
JustMe 171
Frimmel.
When hiring, there is no conversation abouthow if we hire the woman, we can pay less and save money. The mind set is completely different when they hire a man. Its not like they mean to discriminate. They don’t see their own bias. So without even realizing it, they offer the man more.
JoeK 172
Apparently JustMe is a mind reader.
Evidence please.
JustMe 173
Actually Joek, I’m am going by my experience, Recruiting and hiring is what I do. But you know, I am probably wrong.
JustMe 174
Here you go:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/23/pf/college/women-men-pay-gap/index.html
Joe 175
@Just Me #174 All that shows is women (according to THAT study) are making $8k less than men immediately after college.
There’s nothing in there showing evidence that bias of the hiring staff is the cause. Actually they point to two causes right up front:
“Why the gap? Men typically choose majors that result in more lucrative careers post-graduation, like engineering…Men also work more hours, according to AAUW.”
And keep your snark. Just because you work in the field doesn’t mean you are oblivious to the reality of what’s actually happening. Which is clear from your own misrepresentation of the “facts” you submitted.
From this article, women aren’t hired for less – they choose different fields and work fewer hours.
JoeK 176
Correction:
Just because you work in the field doesn’t mean you aren’t oblivious to the reality of what’s actually happening.
Followup that I forgot to include – that’s one study that comes to a conclusion that the AVERAGE income 1 year out of college is different. We’re talking some simple math here that accounts for nothing else – simply addin up the incomes and dividing by the number of people surveyed. Not a very useful number as it masks pretty much everything about the people who were surveyed.
Still it bears repeating – even the referenced article concluded that men work more hours and pursue more lucrative degrees were the two primary reasons for the disparity, and nothing about the research could possible infer anything about hiring bias.
A 20-Something Girl 177
Dear Evan,
I love your blog. Because you don’t bullshit, pretty reasonable, and you don’t bullshit. And in this era of politically-correct minefields, it’s refreshing to hear someone just speak his mind and cut through the bullshit.
That said, it’s hard being a woman nowadays – yes we prioritise a lot of other things over love, like career and success and independence. But let’s just say there’s a lot of societal expectation on us to be breaking barriers and charging forward. You have opportunities! You have education! Your forebears had none of this! YOU MUST MAKE FULL USE OF IT!
We are shamed if we choose otherwise. Girls today are being taught that they can achieve ANYTHING as long as they put in the work, and it’s our duty to carry that torch for future women. Don’t let your predecessors down! It’s a pretty heavy burden. Not unlike what men go through on a daily basis. Feminism has opened many doors, and attached new chains we are unfamiliar with.
What I’m about to say is definitely not politically correct – I didn’t grow up in America, but I’ve met american students on exchange (Europe) and maybe the culture across the pond is a little different. American women are very aggressive and touchy about their feminist rights. Here, it’s a daily life – the men respect us, us them, there’s no need for ball busting.