Betsy Barton: 'I was tormented mercilessly by the girls in the seventh grade'
January 31st, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"When I began junior high, I was shy, naive, and nerdy. I loved school. I enjoyed math games. I completely failed to notice that the other girls were not wearing plaid shirts and corduroy pants like the ones that my mom picked out for me.
"As a result of these 'unfortunate' circumstances and my obviously sensitive nature, I was tormented mercilessly by a small set of the girls in the seventh grade. Most of the other girls --- the vast majority, who didn't actively harass me --- would not be seen talking with me. No girls came to my rescue. Some of the boys ignored what was going on and still tried to treat me like a human being, but at some point it became too difficult even for them.
"The nasty girls used their social status to pick on easy targets. When they were bored, the worst girls would trick me by asking me apparently friendly questions then making fun of my answers in front of the class."
In a recent blog comment, scientist Betsy Barton, one of my favorite readers, described the hell she endured at the hands of other girls while in junior high school. A cousin of mine had a similar experience, one which she still remembers quite well today. I asked Betsy to write a more complete description of her experience, and it appears below.
I shuddered reading it, to be honest. My daughter is a little young for this--she's in 4th grade. Still, I can't help but wonder if this extraordinarily happy and well-adjusted little girl is going to be out through the shredder in a few years because she's wearing the wrong goddamn clothes or shoes, or isn't as sophisticated and manipulative as the other girls. Which I'm sure she won't be.
Know what else scares me? I can't protect her from that stuff. Ouch.
If other readers have had similar experiences--or contrasting ones--I'd be interested in your comments.
What Happens to Junior High Girls?
By Betsy Barton
In a recent thread, a frequent commentator "Roy" said something that brought back a flood of painful memories from my junior high years. Roy said, "Destroying a person's reputation is a very common passive-aggressive tactic that girls learn how to use fairly early in life, and typically it starts during their adolescent `girlfriend wars' when they employ it against their rival females.
"Starting rumors, social ostracism, shunning, shaming, using friendship as a weapon, getting a third party to do your dirty work, making false accusations -- these are all tools in the psychological arsenal -- which are refined and perfected to be used later on in relationship wars with men."
I think Roy's comment is a great description of a small subset of the nastiest girls I knew in my youth. I do not know what their motives were, I only know the consequences. And I am starting to understand --- thanks to Roy --- just who those girls grew up to be.
When I began junior high, I was shy, naive, and nerdy. I loved school. I enjoyed math games. I completely failed to notice that the other girls were not wearing plaid shirts and corduroy pants like the ones that my mom picked out for me. Worst of all, my mother was a substitute teacher --- and later a full-time teacher --- in my school.
As a result of these "unfortunate" circumstances and my obviously sensitive nature, I was tormented mercilessly by a small set of the girls in the seventh grade. Most of the other girls --- the vast majority, who didn't actively harass me --- would not be seen talking with me. No girls came to my rescue. Some of the boys ignored what was going on and still tried to treat me like a human being, but at some point it became too difficult even for them.
The nasty girls used their social status to pick on easy targets. When they were bored, the worst girls would trick me by asking me apparently friendly questions then making fun of my answers in front of the class. One very popular girl from another part of the school would cackle out my name from across the lunch room. My old group of close friends began to reject me. They did not tell me not to hang out with them. Instead, they whispered to each other and then made up little "songs" to sing at recess that were supposed to give me the hint that I shouldn't be there. I soon dreaded school.
I wish I could say that I turned things around by realizing that these girls were immature and insecure and that I didn't care what they thought. Unfortunately, I instead did what most girls do --- I learned to act cool. I slowly learned to hide the fact that I cared about school (except in algebra class, where the temptation was much too great.) I learned to make disrespectful comments about teachers and to act dumb to get people to like me. The acting lessons eventually worked. My old friends took me back and even the cool girls began to accept me. As junior high turned into late high school, I slowly gained social "permission" to be more like myself, although parts of this recovery process are still going on for me.
The book "Reviving Ophelia," by Mary Pipher, is a detailed description of the unfortunate transition that girls make from excited, adventure-seeking pre-adolescents to quiet, suppressed products of intense peer torture in their teens. In retrospect, the book has feminist overtones that put too much blame on society as a whole and not enough responsibility on the predatory "nasty" girls that are allowed to exist almost everywhere. I guess these nasty girls are analogous to the worst bullies among the boys. Anyway, it would still be great to see a similar book written for the boys-to-teens transition in men, if it has not already been done.
I don't know what happened to most of the of nasty girls in my school. By the time we entered high school, I recall that at least one of them had already taken to smoking and pursuing more "exotic" boys at the (very) wealthy prep. school in our neighborhood. I'd love to think the worst ones ended up miserable, but --- as Roy suggests and I am starting to suspect --- they may well be the ones who have turned those tactics against men.
"));
19 queries. 0.604 seconds.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:06 am
I have two in 3rd and 4th and I'm right there with you. It starts off very young, my littlest one used to tease the older one about being a bookhead. Then the worse thing imaginable happened to her. She became a bookhead as she began to read more fluently.
Fast forward, it amazes me how often I hear our modern feminists talk about the misery of their jr. high and high school years one moment, and then the next moment blame everything on men and the patriarchy.
These behaviors are so prevalent in the high school years, I honestly suspect some of it must be nature as well as nurture. But if it's nurture, it has to be in some way that these kids had these behaviors modeled for them, and encouraged and rewarded for acting badly.
I'd say it's mom's fault, but I don't think that's the entire answer.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:27 am
Part of the problem is that as sad as it is to realize, there is a driving force for people to find scapegoats or to locate some alternate individual or group upon which to foist all of your frustrations... or just to have fun at their expense.
It is a very enlightened individual who can learn to recognize the triggers for these sorts of things and make a concerted attempt to short circuit it both internally and externally.
In general the way boys and girls enforce this scapegoating are different... boys tend to deal in the overt whereas girls tend to deal in the covert. Of course there is crossover as there is no reason for either group to limit the tools of their torment to one mode or the other... but the trends are fairly clear.
It would be nice if over the years children grew out of these habits, but unfortunately, the socially effective techniques you learn as a child tend to stick with you into adulthood.
I've always felt that the best way to handle such things is by direct intervention... but all to often people seem to think that it is just kids being kids and hence no one should get involved. The only problem there is that such behavior is the testing ground for the more sophisticated tools we eventually use to deal with people later on. If you learn early on that every time you attempt to use those unacceptable tools an authority figure steps in and and alters things, odds are the display of the behavior will be diminished as it would be less effective.
People are very good at altering their behavior based upon the rate of success and failure... but only if failure occurs early on.
Few people would become compulsive gamblers for example if the first twenty times they made a bet they lost... the only way they become addicted to that behavior is if their early rate of success was enough to make the activity seem worth while.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:30 am
Betsy, your story really brought back memories. I endured my own private hell in high school too. I was nerdish and caught hell for it. Plus being physically and emotionally abused at home sure didn't help either. But now, hell hath no fury like me when I'm approached by a bully. If I could go back to high school I would know exactly how to deal with such bullies. I would surely have to take a few lumps for my trouble but I've become an expert at deflating over-sized egos. First of all your tormentors are the most insecure people in school. Ignoring them and insulting their "status" is guaranteed to rock their worlds. No one likes to be exposed for a fraud especially bullies and the like. Let your tormentors know that you aren't at all impressed by their "status" and that you pity them for needing everyones approval. A bully can have the "support" of all the school body but if you see them for a fraud and let them know it they will work over-time to gain your approval.
When I joined the Army right out of high school I became my own man and didn't concern myself with people pleasing. I wasn't haughty or jaded or anything like that. But because I had been shunned before I learned to enjoy doing my own thing. People picked up on that and found me more interesting. When asked to describe me, many people used words such as aloof, cool and mature. Early adulthood was quite a change from my awkward teenage years.
Most of the bad girls that I grew up with led fairly unhappy lives because many of them failed to grow up. Many of them ruled the high school roost only to be considered "ordinary" when they branched out into the worlds of college, the work-force and adult relationships. Even the hot shot guys were in for a let down once they left high school.
Glenn, you can prepare your daughter now for those intense high school years now. Let her know what to expect. Let her know that some people are going to attempt to destroy her confidence and social standing. Teach her defenses now. The most important defense is realizing that their is not a single person on earth who is "superior" to her no matter how loud they boast. And that all bullies are insecure cowards who are also seeking approval like everyone else. One other thing I would suggest is that she learn to not only confront but embrace new and big environments and make the best of them. I realize that you can actually enjoy a big high school if you're a socially well developed individual.
For instance, one time I was locked up for a week and a half. At first I was moping around. Then I said that I was going to make the best of a bad situation. I started a spelling bee with some of the inmates and it turned out great. Then I got involved in card games, dominoes and checkers. I wrote letter and exercised. The time sped by. when I got to high school I loved the way the school was so much bigger than my previous school. I made good use of the gym, library and other resources available to me. I think that people should really make their school "their" school. I believe that one of the best weapons for high school is self acceptance. That, coupled with insight into people's personalities are invaluable assets.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:03 am
There was a press report a few months ago about text bullying - kids using their cell-phones to intimidate and humiliate other kids. The article made much of the fact that two thirds of the victims were girls, and explained all sorts of reasons and contexts behind the phenomenon. But as I read through it, one question kept nagging at me - what sex were the bullies? The fact that it wasn't being said was quite a hint, but sure enough, near the very end it disclosed both bullies and bullied were female. There was no revelation of how boys were affected, or indeed if girls abusing boys or vice-versa occurred at all.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:16 am
Heres an unusually candid account of text bullying and how it's predominantly a girl thing. The article was prompted by a girl killing herself after repeated taunting.
http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3676242
January 31st, 2008 at 5:55 am
It's not just girls. I was psychologically bullied in primary school (from about 8 to 11) by boys who simply made it clear they didn't want me around. People always say boys bully physically and girls pyschologically, but none of them ever hit me. I could never identify a ringleader, and even boys who were nice to me one-to-one joined in the mass rejection when they were in a crowd. It left me very wary of people for along time, and made it very difficult for me to make friends. I became desperate for the approval of others, which of course made me an easy target, and the mass rejection happened again when I was about 15. The tendency in me to need approval from others has remained with me no matter how much I've tried to beat it. In adulthood it's never been taken advantage of by men, only by women, but in childhood it was always the boys.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:26 am
All anyone has to do to get an up-close and personal look at the violence perpetrated by females (young and old alike) - youtube lays it all out for you. The viciousness is downright shocking and I'm hopeful for the day where it takes it's rightful place in mainstream media and we can put an end to the "only men are violent and abusive" mantra spewed by those with a vested interest in continued misandry.
~Mister-M
January 31st, 2008 at 8:20 am
I hate to say it, Glenn, but just as a warning, your daughter might not be a little young for this. I had a very similar experience in fifth grade and it seems like these sorts of things are happening to younger and younger girls.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:58 am
With a boy who's a bully, you know exactly what you've got. A nasty girl is usually much harder to spot because she often puts on a totally different face to authority figures and deceives people into believing she's a good kid. That is why nasty girls are generally much more dangerous than boys who are bullies.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:24 am
Youre wrong about that Glenn " I cant protect her from that stuff..Ouch"
You can protect them from it. As the father of 4 girls (2 in high school) I cant tell you from first hand experience how to protect them.
1. Teach them from a young age not to worry about what others think of them
2. Always ensure that the clothes or things you buy them for school are not the worst of the worst. Too many parents make the mistake of thinking that what they like is ok. Im not saying they have to be all name brand but the occasional nice thing keeps the girls off of your daughter because those types look for the poor girls so they can act superior to them because of what they wear or what cell phone they have etc.
3. Teach your daughter to walk away from girls like that because they have to have an audience.
4. Keep reminding here that high school is temporary....also that many girls like that find the real world much tougher because when they have to pay thier own bills its a real culture shock for them.
I know some of this may sound trivial but my 2 oldest daughters are a study in contrasts. M is 6'3 and a big girl but I have been able to teach her these things and they have worked. A is looker....Long blond hair 5'8 very curvy who attract a lot of attention from the boys and she did get some flak from girls like Betsy described in her story but she followed the things I wrote earlier and it worked for her.
This type of girl needs a rise to keep going...If you walk away and ignore them eventually they will look for an easier target.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:40 am
In regard to the bullying by girls, when I was in 8th grade as I recall, I was the 'manager' for our H.S.'s Varsity basketball team. (I kept track of basketballs during practice and other dorkey duties, that nonetheless were ideally done by someone other than the coach and teamI was recruited by my oldest brother who was a co-captain of the team.
I'll never forget one occassion riding to or from a game when the cheerleaders, all women aged presumably 16 - 18 talked about me and laughed in a not so secretive way from the back of the school bus. The team was slightly more forward, including my ignoring eldest brother, and I was mid-way up the bus or so. I sensed that there weren't many if any virgins on the bus, and all these young women could do was mock me. I found that cheerleaders are among the most stuck-up and most sexually active (and substance abusive) in the school system, one of whom in my own class or a year behind died soon after graduation from an overdose. (We had three dead on my short street in the suburbs before they turned 25 out of about ten in my age bracket.) I was less mature for my age and so it cut more deeply, though I tried not to give these cheerleaders the satisfaction.
As for the gadgets on and off campus, that is less a reflection on technology than on the lack of parenting, parental control and crime paranoia primarily created through bad governance (single parenting, etc.); media sensationalism; and, most importantly, a lack of prohibitive measures. For example, although it is illegal in the U.S. to block cell phone traffic within a school itself with jamming measures as done in Europe in venues such as movie theaters, if deemed necessary, inside building antenna's installed for the employees and visitors of the school can be eliminated if installed (and other frequencies bands used if wanted for radio-only communication). Furthermore, buidlings can be modified to retain and/or deflect radio and little doubt cellphone waves, though the cost may vary widely depending on the various circumstances.
As for computers and other internet access devices, MySpace.com, etc., if such equipment is not purchased and children property custody in the home is occassionally informally inventoried for 'contraband'. I find it insane that parents, especially what I suspect are frequently single parent mothers and feminists scream for locking gun cabinet laws while thinking that no equivalent technology should be used for PC's. All too many of these same women I know realize how to make men dead the slow way through bigoted and corrupt government, but as usual scream bloody murder at other people when their (and some other adult parent's) children and some other person's children of a like mindset. To put it another way, if children up to the age of 18 were sawing off their fingers with tablesaws in their homes in their county, town or nationally and it got news coverage, I suspect people would be locking up those saw blades. Nanny government can't lock up saw blades any better than it can keep chidlren off computers, other than through recent legislation on such venders of the likes of MySpace.com.
If these parents think that this will now relieve them of the need to properly parent their children, they've got the same misplaced trust in government effectively solving problems within family's when it can't solve lesser problems on a much larger scale. And we all know the great success story of 'It Takes a Village of Idiots' our society is for decades thanks to the inspired thinking of feminist-regressives in the place of either evolution and/or God.
Mike
January 31st, 2008 at 10:10 am
I had a very similar experience that Betsy had... I went to a Catholic all-girls highschool, which you needed to have a 3.5 GPA or above to get in, and cost more than some colleges do... etc. The majority of the girls that went there were from the 'classy' suburbs of the city I grew up in, and were very wealthy. My family is not poor, but they are not living the high life either. When I went there, I didn't have the same clothes as them ($200.00 dollar jeans etc.)... and I didn't drive a Lexus etc. or get a corvette for my birthday... I was (and am) an artist and, when in highschool, I was made fun of so much, but so was my close group of friends. None of us had doctors for parents and such, and we stuck together. Although, I did have my own mind, and I'm a very independent person. I had really good friends and made the best of the situation. After highschool, I went to an art institute and really blossomed... but never really forgot the pain. I do not/did not dwell on it, but instead used it as a model for who I would NEVER be.
Betsy explained my opinions and conclusions so well in this comment:
"I think Roy's comment is a great description of a small subset of the nastiest girls I knew in my youth. I do not know what their motives were, I only know the consequences. And I am starting to understand --- thanks to Roy --- just who those girls grew up to be."
There isn't a doubt in my mind that those girls that were terrible to us in school had grown up and will become unhappy in their workplace and nagging wives. Making fun of someone else only proves how insecure that insensitive person really is. The people like myself, and Betsy, knew what we liked and who we were, and when we made those decisions, we didn't think about whether or not someone would like them until we were ostracized. I don't comment on this site often, but I do check it out, and definitely sympathize with the majority of commenters and blogs that Glenn has posted. I also frequent Feministing.com, and I also agree and sympathize with theirs. I wish that there was a way to come together. I do not believe that you can blame one thing for everything, as many people on this site claim that feminists blame 'patriarchy' only... and I did at one point (I am a feminist). The more I flit between both sites and understand both sides, I see that there are many things to blame for everything, and alot of feminists do just blame patriarchy etc. and alot of Men's Rights Activists blame feminism/feminists. But when I look between the two sites, I see things so similar and the same problems, just happening to a different gender.... But instead of focusing on all the similarities, I will only talk about this one, involving high school ostracizing : and in the comments above by other people that frequent this site, they have said that as men/boys they were also plagued with insults by others of their same gender. I assume that as those teenage girls grew up to be nagging and terrible women...that the men that did the same to the men commenting on this site grew up to be the same? Vindictive teenagers grow up to be vindictive adults... both genders alike... and I am glad (now) to have been at the 'butt' of their joke, because I understand how much that hurt and could never do that to anyone now or in the future.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:11 am
Perhaps Betsy Barton's experiences helped to make her stronger. I hope that my daughters can achieve what she has achieved...if they wish.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:45 am
Bullies come in all ages, genders, colors, political persuasions, ethnicities, shapes and sizes.
This is something I learned in my 40 years on Earth. The question is: Why can't feminists realize this? Why do they only blame one gender --the gender that gave the the freedom and technology to voice their complaints???
January 31st, 2008 at 10:53 am
Tony,
There is no Feddle money in that approach. Also, all totalitarian philosophies must have a racial/gender/ethnic boogerman to rally the faithful. I have become fully convinced that the key players know exactly what they are doing.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:53 am
Reading these comments brought back some memories that I just have to share. If I had to choose between being bullied by either a boy or a girl, hands down I would choose the boy. I noticed from the earliest school days that the toughest girls were extremely vicious. I recalled that when two boys in my school would fight they would be friends again within a week. There weren't even broken teeth or black eyes involved. But leading up to a fight between girls they would say that they were going to scratch the other girl's eyes out and pull out clumps of hair and they would do just that. And they could hold a grudge until the cows come home.I also bring this up because when I run into a feminist I can ask them to explain the vicious girls that populate society.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:15 am
My older sister went to the same Catholic High School I ended up going to... for 6 months. She was teased so mercilessly that she ended up switching to the public high school. In her case it was the fact that my parents didn't have the money to equip her with all the latest fashion, and that she was a bit overweight.
My experience was different simply because I refused to let it get to me - I didn't have the cool clothes either... and I was a computer geek when there were barely any computers in school - if that doesn't put the bullseye on you I don't know what does. The big difference is that I was very stubborn and to be blunt I was pretty self-centered (where my sister tried hard to make everyone happy), I had a strong sense of self even at that age and I really couldn't be bothered to care what those kids though for the most part. Sure it got to me sometimes... but I had a strong family FULL of real men - and those men didn't need to put others down to make themselves feel good. As a result I found that not only did that behavior not really bother me when others did it to me, but when I did it myself I felt BAD - like I was failing at being a man, so I didn't do it to others. I think the important thing as a parent is to show your children that it's the behavior of the bully that's improper... and therefore their opinion can safely be discarded. IMO you do that by example, you reject adult bullying behavior, you don't denigrate others, you correct your children when they act the bully (as we all do on occasion).
January 31st, 2008 at 11:18 am
Glenn,
You can, and must, take action to protect your daughter. While in 7th grade, my daughter was included in a group of girls that was the target of psychological and emotional terrorism from another group. It turns out that the abusive group was controlled and egged on by one ringleader. There was no particular reason for the bullying -- an "us" will always find a "them." We complained to the school's principal and demanded action -- and got it. We threatened to remove our daughter and both of her younger brothers from the school. We also contacted the parents of other affected girls and urged them to do the same thing. The bullying stopped, and not long afterwards, the ringleader left the school. This was, however, a private Catholic grammar school, where attendance was a privilege, not a right. I do not know if the result in a public school would have been the same.
On the physical side of things, I must note that the vast majority of violence inflicted on me in grammar school and high school was inflicted by girls. I was kicked in the shins several times. I got the impression that the girls who did this thought it was funny to see a boy in pain. Of course, hitting back was forbidden. Another time, a girl who decided she didn't like something I said recruited her older brother to sucker punch me in the face. Girls are non-violent? Don't believe it!!
The physical and emotional bullying by girls exists because we tolerate it -- much more than we tolerate boys' misbehavior. The psychological and emotional bullying of feminists is nothing more than an extension of 7th grade tactics. We should not tolerate it. Get it out in the open. Sunlight is the best sanitizer.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:27 am
Tony, the lesbian component of NOW is to blame. Numerous lesbians hate men even if they don't have much contact with them. NOW has a disproportionately large number of misandrist lesbians in the ranks and they make key policies. Lesbians can trash men all they like because they don't sleep with the enemy and don't care about families. So to turn heterosexual women against men the lesbians played the "oppression" card and women fell for it hook line and stinker.
Feminists don't "realize" bullies come in all shapes and sizes because oppression of men and destruction of the family were their original goals. But fortunately for us people are fighting back and feminism simply will not be able to contend with the backlash. Hillary's campaign proves my positions. The best way to destroy feminism is to assault it with logic and a good dose of reality. Anger and activism also help.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:29 am
Stephen said:
I also bring this up because when I run into a feminist I can ask them to explain the vicious girls that populate society.
As a feminist... I can answer this question. From a young age, girls are taught (by each other) to be threatened by each other and competitive toward each other for popularity, looks, clothes, intelligence, etc. This is often something that is shown in the media, on many levels.... one example: beauty magazines. Men are taught from an early age to be good sports and to also be confident. I do a lot of films and animations dealing with feminism and body issues etc. and have done plenty of well rounded research on the matter. Many of the books that I have read (written by feminists) explain how our culture has evolved toward women competing against women... For example: Woman A works for a progressing company and has been there for two years. Suddenly, Woman B is hired. Woman A will assess Woman B's attractivity to figure out who is more attractive. If Woman A is more attractive, she will be less threatened because she has physically 'one-upped' Woman B... I have brought this up to fellow girl friends of mine and they say 'Yeah, I do that? So what? That's what we do!" Like the answer 'that's what we do' is supposed to absolve that, and make the question of 'should we do it?' disappear entirely. Girls are honestly taught this unconsciously from the beginning. If they are not taught by parents, they are taught by classmates like the ones discussed in this particular thread. It starts out small, but can lead to larger things later. Women need to realize that they do this (I, too, have done it, and have realized it...) and then learn to get past it, and be more confident in themselves... not in how much better they are than other people...and when thoughts like that come up, think: 'Wait, this isn't the way I should be thinking...". One of the things I have always noticed about men, which made me gravitate toward many male friends in high school and college, is that they can argue one minute and be friends the next. Men tend to be thick skinned, avoid unnecessary arguments, and are more laid back. I have great female friends that have the same qualities I have mentioned that men have, but I have met far more women that don't.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:49 am
Junior was definitely hell.
I agree with Patrick Brown, though - I had the emotional truama Betsy described, and girls participated, but the ringleaders were boys. Physically bullying was not done by the popular kids, although there was plenty of vandalism. Mostly insults and humiliation, and if you fought back physcially, they would just get you in trouble with the school administration.
I also agree with Mike D - parents can do a lot, not to completely protect kids from this, but to help them bounce back. Give them as many opportunities as you can to do things they are good at, things they find meaningful. Keep talking to them, treating them like worthwhile people. Don't dismiss problems with bullying. You may have survived and come out stronger yourself, but that doesn't mean it isn't awful and damaging to endure.
I know it's not everyone's experience, but church was a good haven for me. Those kids didn't care about popular culture or material signs of class.
There may be lesbians in NOW who are jerks, and not part of the solution, but they are not the problem. As bad as bullying can be for straight kids, it is very often worse for kids who are, or are perceived to be, queer.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:15 pm
"they say 'Yeah, I do that? So what? That's what we do!" Like the answer 'that's what we do' is supposed to absolve that, and make the question of 'should we do it?' disappear entirely.
Reminds me of a deleted scene from some DVD I watched. Jeff Bridges(?) tells a story.
There is this cage with these 5 gorillas in it. There is a banana hanging from the top of the cage and some steps the gorillas can climb and get to the banana.
One of the gorillas gets hungry and goes for it. At which point ALL of the gorillas are hosed down with freezing cold water. Big fire hose style splaying them all over the cage.
Well the gorillas dry off and one of 'em goes for the fruit again. Again with the freezing cold water.
Well the next time a gorilla goes for the fruit the other gorillas tackle it before it can set foot on the steps.
Well they start switching the gorillas. They get a new gorilla and send one of the original gorilllas away.
The new gorilla goes for the fruit and gets tackled.
They keep getting new gorillas and the new gorilla keeps going for the fruit and getting tackled.
Eventually they don't have any of the original gorillas.
Well a new gorilla comes in, goes for the fruit and gets tackled. "What the hell did you do that for?" screams the new gorilla.
"That's what we do around here."
January 31st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I think what Ashley says has a lot of truth to it.
From lonespark: "I also agree with Mike D - parents can do a lot, not to completely protect kids from this, but to help them bounce back. Give them as many opportunities as you can to do things they are good at, things they find meaningful."
I also agree that having opportunities they care about outside of school will help. It will remind them that school isn't everything and the power of the bullies will be diminished. I'm afraid that just telling them that school isn't everything does not help all that much. At least, it didn't help me all that much when that was the approach my mom took.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Ashley said:
"As a feminist... I can answer this question. From a young age, girls are taught (by each other) to be threatened by each other and competitive toward each other for popularity, looks, clothes, intelligence, etc. This is often something that is shown in the media, on many levels.... "
Wrong! As a parent, an observer and someone who has studied this, girls are not TAUGHT to be girls and boys are not taught to be boys. This is in the genes. Please read up on what happens to indentical twins raised in totally different enviornments and the boys who were raised as "girls" when their circumcisions were botched.
People by nature are competitive and girls manifest this in their own way. Now, the SPECIFIC ways US girls behave is culturally determined to a large degree. But the feminists go wrong thinking "social conditioning" is totally responsible for behavior. It is only a small part of the mix.
I dunno how old you are, but when you become a parent, give your pre-socialized 2-year-old girls trucks and boys dolls and watch what they do with them.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Hi Betsy,
I was a also a "math and science nerd" and was shunned to some extent in seventh and eigth grade. I guess one can be philosophical about the issue, at least when looking back, and wonder what ever happened to all those mean people. After all, you became a respected scientist; whereas they, who were more worried about petty things like what kind of clothes to wear, probably ended up in dead-end jobs or dead-end marriages.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Ahhh yes the herd mentality is alive and well in the fairer sex.
Dave K said:
“I had a strong sense of self even at that age and I really couldn't be bothered to care what those kids though for the most part. Sure it got to me sometimes... but I had a strong family FULL of real men - and those men didn't need to put others down to make themselves feel good.”
Me too Dave. I had three older brothers who (I have now come to realise) were strong, independent and fair-minded individuals. I suspect that some of their traits rubbed off on me (not very scientific but, basically, they made me tough) – and I give them credit regardless of whether or not that is true. I was never subjected to bullying in school but witnessed the vicious and cruel treatment that juvenile girls can mete out to those easily separated from the crowd. (Not the boys didn’t do it but the viciousness with which the girls pursued their victims was unsurpassed and unrelenting!) I did my best to stand up for the victims (with varying degrees of success) whenever I could (Betsy, I would have been there for you) but, perhaps more importantly, I made damn sure that I did NOT provide even tacit approval for the group-mentality behavoir by shunning the perpetrators’ offers of friendship. I guess I was lucky to have enough self-confidence and sufficient empathy to withstand what is, and clearly was for me, intense group pressure to ostracize someone for being different.
Tony S
Genetic or not it can be, to a significant measure, subdued by any number of means, eg, as per an earlier post see comments relating to A Clockwork Orange.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I have to admit that when I was picked on I always came to the same conclusion:
* Eat like a horse and wrestle with my brother and friends every day for a few weeks while avoiding the bully and acting passive.
* Finally 'allow' him to talk me into a moderated one on one fight in an out of the way location.
* Give him a knock down drag out 2 hour fight going back and forth between boxing and wrestling. Show some honor but be fast, aggressive and hard.
While I am just an average size guy who liked reading as much as sports, I never found a bully that was willing to pay the 'cost' to bully me again. I never minded the 'cost' for freedom.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Oh, my recipe for my kids: keep their grades up, get them involved in heavy athletics, and go out of my way to support their friendships with other kids.
I let them pick and choose their friends, but I constantly push them to select from the best quality people and be ruthless with kicking immoral types from their circle.
Finally, I shower them with attention and admiration from me. This can be difficult to do all at the same time, because the kids compete for my attention. Sometimes I have to spend extra special time with the girl, not letting the boy come, because the boy tends to outcompete for my time in doing 'boy' things.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Well, I am very honored that Betsy took my words to heart. I have a chivalrous soft spot for logically-inclined women, as it's been my experience that they are rare. I guess that is a sexist comment?
As a father of two daughters who are by any definition smart, gorgeous, and successful (OK let me brag a moment) -
The 25 year-old is a master designer/educator for a national salon franchise in Manhattan and she will be happy to cut your hair for $200.
The 19 year-old graduated first in her HS class and is a sophomore at the first-ranked journalism school in the nation.
Now, none of that matters when it comes to a father trying to understand why this culture makes girls so crazy.
Can you even begin to imagine, as a man, how many mixed messages girld and young women have to deal with today?
Are they supposed to be princesses, or sluts?
Do they commit 100% to their careers, or look for Prince Charming?
What about having babies?
What about the 50% divorce rate they can expect, with the babies, when the Prince turns out to be a Frog - and they initiate the divorce?
How thin is too thin? How fat is ... well?
Can you be a 3rd-Wave feminist and still be feminine?
Hillary or Obama ... ?
Do you want to be like your mom?
How come you can't talk with your dad about sex?
What color should your hair be next month?
Why don't the other girls really like you?
I could go on....
But I'll yield my time to the true female experts here, who are typically more eloquent and insightful than I am.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:59 pm
"Many of the books that I have read (written by feminists) explain how our culture has evolved toward women competing against women.."
Thank you for not blaming the "patriarchy" for the problem.
Sometimes it's good to read books by non-feminists too, to get a more rounded view of a topic.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Betsy B., I agree. But kids have to go to school, and even sports and other activities can have these kinds of problems. I liked school, and the bullying didn't interefere with doing well or enjoying classes. I got along with the teachers and made a very select few friends...but I hated the experience of going to school, because of what happened every time the teacher's back was turned, in the halls, etc.
Tony S., there's a lot of both nature and nurture in social behaviors, as well as personal tempraments (due to nature and nurture.) I have similar experiences to Ashley's, as far as some people holding grudges, talking behind your back, etc. In my experience, this has to be largely a socialized response, because some people act that way, others don't, and also the same person may or may not act that way depending on the relationship, their comfort level, mental state, etc.
The shallow "mean girl" behavior is something I have experienced a lot with people of both sexes in the mainstream of society, and very rarely at my technical school or in my professional life.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Tony S said:
"People by nature are competitive and girls manifest this in their own way. Now, the SPECIFIC ways US girls behave is culturally determined to a large degree. But the feminists go wrong thinking "social conditioning" is totally responsible for behavior. It is only a small part of the mix."
I wouldn't say that 'social conditioning' is a small part. I would say that it's a large part, especially today. Take pink vs. blue for example in today's society. Pre 1930, boys and girls wore the same clothing (generally white dresses), played with the same toys, had long hair, and were treated the same until they reached the end of their toddler years. Then the girls were conditioned to be girls and do things the way that they were done at that time. The boys were put in pants, had their hair cut, and then were conditioned to be boys etc. There actually is some psychology/science to this... children until about the age of 5 do not realize that their gender is permanent. They think that they have a choice. Around 1920, people decided to color code the gender for babies, making the girls wear blue because it symbolized Mary the Mother of Jesus and was a nice calm color. The boys wore pink since it is a derivitive or red, which is a symbol of passion, valor, and courage. Sometime between 1920 and 1930 those colors switched! So, Tony, would you wear a pink shirt? It's becoming a little less taboo now than it was say, 5 years ago, but that is a form of conditioning!
I'm not saying that there aren't underlying behavors that are natural human behaviors... like being competitive. Competition is prominent through nature in both humans and animals... of course it is natural and ingrained in us. It is part of basic survival instincts like eating, sleeping, and sex, compassion, intelligence, but it's a more complicated one. But, in today's society, especially America, I believe that these things have become distorted. I attempted to explain the ways that natural competition has become distorted in my previous post.
Tony S.:
"I dunno how old you are, but when you become a parent, give your pre-socialized 2-year-old girls trucks and boys dolls and watch what they do with them."
I'm not sure what you mean by that comment, if you're saying that they will play with the toys and not think about their gender... or if they will not like the toy that you give them? I will just explain my thoughts on small children and gender specific toys... As for becoming a parent, I am not interested in having children, but I'm in the prime age range for having them. To give you another clue about my age, when I was younger, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were VERY popular. I wanted the action figures terribly, but my family would not buy them for me because I was a girl and those were boy's toys! (Later my dad bought me plastic lizards and MatchBox Cars though, I love my dad!) Also, my pre-school girl friends made fun of me for liking the color green more than pink or purple! But I still loved my My Little Ponies and my FischerPrice kitchen... but I also had a Powerwheels Corvette! I had a lot of little boy playmates that came over when I was between 2 -5... and they LOVED baby dolls and My Little Ponies! Maybe the facination with the opposite gender's toys is because they are foreign and interesting, or maybe they enjoy both? I personally grew up with a very gender restrictive family... I would pick up a hammer and my mom or grandma (NOT my dad and grandfather) would say "No no hunny, those are for boys!" But I have an aptitude for learning that sort of thing, and when I was 12 years old I put in a toilet in a new bathroom addition my grandfather was building (I lived with my mom and grandparents) and then went to my friend's house for a slumber party where we talked about guy crushes and did each other's nails or something like that.
I have two friends that both have a 5 year old child. One of them has a boy, the other a girl. So when their mothers get together, they naturally bring the two children together. My friend's daughter is obsessed with Disney Princesses and everything she owns...clothing, toys, cups, etc. has them on it. But, when the 5 year old boy comes over, he absolutely LOVES to play at her pink and white table with her Disney Princess tea set! But again, like I said before, maybe the allure of these toys isn't that they are what the child wants to play with, but something that they rarely get to play with so it's seen as a new experience?
January 31st, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Betsy Barton: 'I was tormented mercilessly by the girls in the seventh grade'
except in algebra class, where the temptation was much too great.)
You are such a geek, only kidding
and to act dumb to get people to like me
There are times here on this board that this seems necessary (not that I care as much anymore but I do know what I know mostly from firsthand experience or knowledge and often enough it seems that this information is either dismissed or ignored [because of the much higher caliber of people on this board this happens to a much greater frequency on other boards]). So the saga continues into adulthood perhaps as a defense mechanism to prevent drawing the negative attention and through clever prestidigitation diverting it elsewhere or simply making it disappear
b
January 31st, 2008 at 2:22 pm
"Sometimes it's good to read books by non-feminists too, to get a more rounded view of a topic."
I have read many books on the subject that pre-date Second Wave Feminism, pamphlets handed out to women/girls from between 1800-1950 in America, gender-neutral books on sex's history as pertaining to physical and mental beauty standards for males and females, and lastly, books written by men for men about the increasing numbers of male bulemia and anorexia and the physical standards in today's society that make men have body issues, etc. But only the books written by feminists talked about the tidbits I mentioned, on how our culture has evolved toward women competing against women, which could explain the issues with mean 'popular' girls in high school etc.
Also, since this is a MRA site, and I am a feminist, I do agree with many things in this blog, which I said before... and I started reading this site in order to get a more rounded view :)
January 31st, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Ashley Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Also, since this is a MRA site, and I am a feminist, I do agree with many things in this blog, which I said before... and I started reading this site in order to get a more rounded view :)
= = =
Veritas vos liberabit . . . LOL only kidding
It is very refreshing to see some one who thinks this way and challenges their own beliefs first for the benefit of themselves and in reality fir the benefit of all. You have my respect.
b
January 31st, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Oh, I neglected to tell you of another experience, where I used to work on a 3rd shift (9PM - 7AM) at a medium-sized grocery store chain's then largest store while I was in college. One of two brothers whom normally worked that shift with us was off that night and came to visit us at that store's front doors. It is important to note that against State law, we were locked into the store for the night without any supervisor each shift.
In any case, while this young guy who even played football for his high school a couple of towns aways was talking to his brother at the window and most of the rest of us hung out there listening for a several minutes at about 11 pm at light, about 3 to 4 girls about his age got out of one or more cars and proceeded to try to beat the crap out of him. I serious doubt that he knew ANY of these girls since they all appeared to be from other than the State we all commuted from. As for having met them previously at a bar, everyone seemed high school age or slightly older involved making them all underage for that type of past acquaintance. He fought just as hard back and after a minute or two of that, and us pounding on the window and claiming that one of us had called the cops, did these thugs leave. (This was in about 1978 or 1979.)
Mike
January 31st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Ashley,
Have you read -
"Female Chauvinist Pigs" by Ariel Levy?
"Odd Girl Out" by Rachel Simmons?
"Who Stole Feminism?" by Christina Hoff-Sommers?
"The Manipulated Man" by Esther Vilar?
"The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell?
--------
It's good that you still have an open mind and receptive attitude about the gender wars.
You will have to navigate through the next few decades where indeed we will see more and more "women competing against women..."
And, you'll be on your own because, men increasingly no longer care whether women lose, or win.
You go girls!
January 31st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Ashley,
Welcome.
I will note that it is real easy for folks to posit that male/female contructs are imposed by society for convenience's sake -- until they have children.
I will also note that it is easy to be a staunch feminist -- until you open your ears, mind and heart to reasonable opposition. You may end up remaining a feminist, but is it ok if I try to make it something other than easy? : )
January 31st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Roy: I have read about half of 'Female Chauvinist Pigs' (then I had to return it to the library), and all of 'The Myth of Male Power'. I have also read: Ceasefire! Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality" by Cathy Young. Very interesting read.
"And, you'll be on your own because, men increasingly no longer care whether women lose, or win.
You go girls!"
Roy, I'm not exactly sure what this means... and what loosing or winning has to do with anything. Please clarify because I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Also, by my saying 'women competing against women...' as you quoted in your last comment, I did not mean winning or loosing at all, but in how some women behave toward each other in social situations.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Patrick Brown: "It's not just girls. I was psychologically bullied in primary school (from about 8 to 11) by boys who simply made it clear they didn't want me around. People always say boys bully physically and girls pyschologically, but none of them ever hit me. I could never identify a ringleader, and even boys who were nice to me one-to-one joined in the mass rejection when they were in a crowd. It left me very wary of people for along time, and made it very difficult for me to make friends. I became desperate for the approval of others, which of course made me an easy target, and the mass rejection happened again when I was about 15. The tendency in me to need approval from others has remained with me no matter how much I've tried to beat it. In adulthood it's never been taken advantage of by men, only by women, but in childhood it was always the boys."
Almost every word of that is exactly similar to what happened to me, except the part about it being only boys back then. In my school (which was only about 6 years ago, btw), girls and boys alike were totally monstrous to each other, within and across genders. Girls, for example, would find a nerdy, insecure boy and pretend to have a crush on them, only to laugh and say they were just kidding when he responded and got all his hopes up (this didn't completely happen to me, but it did happen to a few I knew).
Betsy: 7th grade was your year, too, huh? That was my most hellish year as well. For whatever reason, that grade, that age, just breeds cruelty and competition like bacteria. And it's not the healthy kind of competition. I use this word to describe it almost all the time it comes up, because it fits so well: the middle school environment is downright DARWINIAN. It really is ruled by the law of the jungle. Back then, you wonder "why are people doing this to me? What have I done to deserve this?" The worst part is that the answer is totally, maddeningly stupid and simple: they're doing it not so much to put you down, but to build their own egos up. Middle school fosters an environment where, socially, the only way to get ahead in the totem pole is to prey on people weaker (a.k.a. more of a social outcast) than you. I admit it, when I did find someone who was even more pathetic than me, I unleashed the same taunting and bullying that I had received from countless others. Why? Because it built me back up from all those others putting me down. It really is Darwinian, a sickening survival of the fittest.
And of course, the teachers and administrators are rarely any help whatsoever. They either turn a blind eye and go with the "we're teachers, not policemen" excuse, or they try some band-aid solution, like holding an assembly where they show a video or have a speaker preaching being nice to other people and not bullying. The problem with this is, of course, the fact that thanks to the arbitrary-yet-powerful social norms of the school, no 12-year-old is going to step out of the auditoriom saying "Wow! I'm inspired now! I'm NEVER going to bully again!!" It just doesn't work that way.
All of middle school was bad for me, but seventh grade was the closest I ever came in my academic career to going totally insane. From the beginning of high school, though, it pretty much dissappeared. It could be because people finally matured and wised up. It could be because I finally matured physically (I slimmed down, lost my babyfat, and regained my looks) so that I didn't look like an easy target anymore. For some reason, high school was perfectly alright. But that doesn't make the memories of those three years of hell any worse.
One book on this subject that might be of interest is the book "Nobody Left To Hate: Teaching Compassion After Columbine" by Eliot Aronson. It attributes the bullying that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold went through as the primary root cause of what they did, and gives some specific suggestions for new classroom models that, according to him, have been proven to both reduce bullying and improve academic performance at the same time. Might be worth a look.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:31 pm
"I don't know how old you are, but when you become a parent, give your pre-socialized 2-year-old girls trucks and boys dolls and watch what they do with them."
2 years might be a wee bit young. But under most circumstances the girl will reject the truck and the boy will reject the doll. For a little girl it's a bit awkward trying to nurture a truck. And it's equally as difficult for a boy to shoot with a doll or play football with it.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:31 pm
"I will also note that it is easy to be a staunch feminist -- until you open your ears, mind and heart to reasonable opposition. You may end up remaining a feminist, but is it ok if I try to make it something other than easy? : )"
Jay, as a feminist, I do not believe women are better than men... When I say that I'm a feminist, I mean the #1 definition according to dictionary.com: feminism - the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. I would like to see men and women work together, and bring many of the issues talked about on both glennsacks.com and feministing.com together in some way... (I've actually been thinking about starting my own blog site) Obviously, not all of the issues discussed on those two sites are the same... but alot of them are. For example: There have been posts talking about how in TV shows etc. showing married families, the wife is always the really smart, logical, and nit-picky one, while the husband is usually dumb and irresponsible. When MRA's see this, they say: 'Look at how they are portraying that man! They're making men look like complete idiots!". When I see it, I think: "Wow! This show makes women look like uptight control freaks!" It's the same exact TV show married family plot, and both feminist and MRA see that plot and the characters as a problem... but in a different way... but is it really that different?
January 31st, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Ashley,
Maybe I should have just said "I do not care" whether women win or lose. A commentator above expressed this philosophy in the abbreviated form ... MGTOW -- Men Go Their Own Way.
Feminism has defined the gender wars -- male:female relations -- as a "zero sum" game. That means winners and losers.
It may be difficult for women to grasp just how alienated men are becoming from what passes today for the "fairer sex." Because, frankly, your gender is not especially desirable -- now that being a careerist, aggressive, raunch pole dancer/cougar with a bedside table full of condoms is the norm...
What has happened to femininity?
And I am not talking about submissiveness.
Obviously any woman understands women much better than any man.
Why is your gender so hell-bent, via feminism, on the destruction of everything you desire?
Seriously.
Though, I really no longer care what women desire... so long as I do not have to pay for it.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
"And of course, the teachers and administrators are rarely any help whatsoever. They either turn a blind eye and go with the 'we're teachers, not policemen' excuse,"
I'm glad I started school before feminism took over. I started 1st grade in the fall of 1967 and at that time teachers were allowed to spank students. There were far fewer bullies then compared to today. Back then rebellious kids weren't put on a pedestal and were generally shunned. I recall several instances of teacher on student physical discipline. All the teachers were fair and logical and the students stopped their foolish behavior. The system worked.
But by the time I graduated high school In the late 1970's, things had changed drastically. Discipline was a thing of the past and the students were worse for it. But the late 70's looks like heaven compared to today. One major problem with feminists is that they throw off all restraint and anything goes. If I ever have kids I'm going to discipline them because if I don't they're going to turn out to be feminists: the biggest crybabies in history.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Ashley,
Yes, it really is that different. The contempt for men is direct and obvious. The "slam" against women is anything but. I would be ready to make that trade every time, wouldn't you?
To make yourself feel better and avoid cognitive dissonance, you search out a "nice" definition of feminism (created by the feminists), but I've lived it. I've been steeped in it my entire adult life. It is a hate movement. The very term, which I find deeply offensive, is exclusive of, and thus inherently hostile to, men. Your playing with semantics cannot change that fact. If you are not a female-supremacist, then you are not a feminist. Find a new term -- one that is not so laden with negativity and gender hostility that it is a "red flag" which invites attack. In my view, the typical feminist is someone who believes first, and thinks later -- if at all, and if you can call it that. ("reinforces" is probably more apt -- one hears what they want to hear and disregards the rest, right?)
You would like to see "equal rights" for women. Of course you would. What I would like to see is:
-- Rights for men commensurate with their existing responsibilities.
-- Responsibilities for women commensurate with their existing rights.
A "true" feminist would spend her (or his) time and effort encouraging responsibility for women, don't you think? Talk about as rare as hen's teeth ....
January 31st, 2008 at 4:04 pm
(Ashley) -- "...the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men."
As a self-proclaimed feminist, can you name even ONE socially approved, legal form of discrimation against women?
Just one, please?
January 31st, 2008 at 4:06 pm
errr.. spellcheck -- "discrimination."
January 31st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
"Why is your gender so hell-bent, via feminism, on the destruction of everything you desire?"
What exactly is it that women desire that we are destroying? Femininity is certainly not lost. And no, I'm not talking about submissiveness either.
"Because, frankly, your gender is not especially desirable -- now that being a careerist, aggressive, raunch pole dancer/cougar with a bedside table full of condoms is the norm..."
I don't think that I could place any of the women I know in my life into that description you've made of women, especially when you make it so negative. You mentioned above that:
"As a father of two daughters who are by any definition smart, gorgeous, and successful (OK let me brag a moment) The 25 year-old is a master designer/educator for a national salon franchise in Manhattan and she will be happy to cut your hair for $200.The 19 year-old graduated first in her HS class and is a sophomore at the first-ranked journalism school in the nation."
To decontruct what you said above, your 25 year old would probably be a "careerist"? Or somewhat "aggressive" unless that salon picked her up out of nowhere and hired her... without her working hard to get what she wanted! She sounds amazing and successful! You have every right to be proud! But the desire to have a career as well as the ambition and aggression/competition to do it is something she must have! Same formula applies to your 19 year old daughter. I don't mean to bring them up in a negative light at all you have a very wonderful and successful family! And I wish them all the more luck in the future.
As for the 'raunch pole dancer/cougar with the bedside table full of condoms' bit, I have one friend like that... who drives me crazy... she's not fun and sexy like the media would have that type of lifestyle pictured, she is dirty and distasteful. Please don't categorize women like that. The majority of women I have grown up with have more morals, common sense, and self-respect to do that to themselves.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Bernie: (from Bernie to me, above): You are such a geek, only kidding
No duh! But I'm now at peace with my geekiness. Don't worry, I've got a Bernie joke waiting in the wings for a quiet day on the blog. :)
Ashley: You make a lot of great points. I think that there can be real common ground between men and women on the gender equality front, even though the specific mens and womens issues are different from each other.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
roy, you nailed it with your "alienated men" post. I also lament the passing of femininity. (R.I.P.) Feminism does not make women more attractive. it makes them less desirable. For instance, I hate the way feminists, who are the definition of immoral skank behavior, try to force their brand of "morality" on the public. Take the example of the raunchy pole dancer. Raunch is raunch and sexy is sexy. They are two very different things. Now, many women think it's perfectly normal and acceptable to put themselves through college with money they earn from stripping. I want to inform these women that strippers are for kicks and ladies are wife material. If you want to be respected put your clothes back on dammit. I like Gina's pin-ups for vets because they cover more of the body. When you see everything you quickly lose interest. The same goes for stripping, putting out too soon and cohabiting. I'm willing to bet that most cases of cohabitation don't lead to marriage. And I'll also bet that most marriages that started out in cohabitation end in divorce. I don't have any stats, I'm just going on a hunch.
Feminists equate femininity with weakness and sold that spiked potion to too many women. There should be a book titled "Rediscover Your Femininity" for women who think they have to act like men to succeed in life. Wise women know that femininity is an asset. Also, I believe that most men want a woman who is a whole person and not some submissive doormat. But good luck trying to tell that to a feminist.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Betsy: "I think that there can be real common ground between men and women on the gender equality front, even though the specific mens and womens issues are different from each other."
It is true that there can be, or at least could have been, real common ground between men and women. This is feminism's greatest failure -- the wasted opportunity to have been inclusive of both genders' concerns and viewpoints. If it had done this, we could have gotten past the sexist term itself. Instead of taking advantage of an opportunity for mutual advancement, feminism has devolved into being the purveyor of unrelenting gender hostility and misunderstanding. Feminism needs to be done away with -- tossed like so much rotting garbage onto the rubbish heap of "herstory." Then maybe something new and mutually beneficial can emerge -- if things are not already too far gone.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:27 pm
(Ashley re. her friend) -- "...she is dirty and distasteful. "
Why? Isn't that the kind of slutty girl that men want? Isn't her promiscuous behavior a badge of her feminist liberation? Have you told her that if she keeps behaving like a skank, you can't be her friend anymore?
"What exactly is it that women desire that we are destroying? Femininity is certainly not lost. "
And now, you need to construct a logical argument that refutes my statement and supports yours.
Because your friend is arguably not feminine, and now please explain why.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
"I have read many books on the subject that pre-date Second Wave Feminism...[etc]"
It sounds like you are still getting mainly a feminist or at least a female perspective on things. Ideological feminists have created a situation where all gender issues are discussed from the perspective of women, whether it is men or women doing the talking.
Have you read anything by Warren Farrell, like perhaps "The Myth of Male Power"? That book is written to balance what is already out there and truly shows things from a male perspective. Or if you don't want to take on that project, there is a pdf downloadable (for a couple bucks) from www.lulu.com, an easy-to-read booklet called "Good Will Toward Men" by Jack Kammer. I think the latter might be more up your alley. Other books are:
Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say (by Farrell)
Why Men Earn More (by Farrell - has advice for women on how to increase their income)
Spreading Misandry (Nathanson and Young)
If Men Have All the Power, How Come Women Make The Rules? (by Kammer, and free on lulu - this is probably the easiest read on the list)
If you can honestly make it even half-way through one of these books, I think most men on this board will be more than happy . (that goes for the rest of the women on the board too:)
January 31st, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Ashley said:
"Also, since this is a MRA site, and I am a feminist, I do agree with many things in this blog, which I said before... and I started reading this site in order to get a more rounded view :)"
Thanks for the open mind ashley. I don't mind feminism as long as it doesn't base its principles on the idea that men are an oppressor class called a patriarchy. To me, that is "passing the buck" or "scapegoating." I tend to believe that men and women coevolved.......both biologically and socially......to end up in the state we are currently in. So I guess one could call me both a masculist and a feminist.........kinda like Warren Farrell. I believe that men and women each share 50% of the blame for gender-related depravity. With men, this is sometimes manifested in chivalry.
But I do not like how feminism perpetuates certain myths (pay gap, patriarchy, the male abuser, rape hysteria, etc). For example, there is almost no media coverage of the tremendous emotional consequences of herjury (bait rape) which can be equally or more damaging than rape itself (where about 50% of alleged rapes may be false).
In the 70's the spotlight was on womens intellectual abilities. Now is the time for the spotlight to focus on male disposability............since males kill themselves 4x as often, comprise over 90% of prisoners, comprise over 80% of the homeless, live 5 years less, etc.
My basic belief is this: males are generally negatively stereotyped as lacking emotional intelligence, and females are generally negatively stereotyped as lacking intellectual intelligence. Similarly, females tend to be sometimes objectified as sex objects while males tend to be objectified as success objects. Society may respect men more than women..........but sadly, society seems to love, cherish, and protect women more than men. Alice Eagly has even documented this and called it the "women are wonderful effect." This kind of societal chivalry alludes to male disposability.
I believe there are three main mechanisms of misandry:
1). Chivalry
2). Illusion of patriarchy (the justification for anti-male double standards)
3) Myth that males lack emotions (the fish metaphor: if it is okay to eat fish since they lack feeling, this logic can be extended to men to justify male dispoability)
If you are interested in reading more about masculism, I recommend the following as good starters:
*Myth of Male Power: Warren Farrell
*Hazards of being male: surviving the myth of masculine privilege: Herb Goldberg
Thanks again ashley for your receptiveness for masculism.
Masculist XY
January 31st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
"To make yourself feel better and avoid cognitive dissonance, you search out a "nice" definition of feminism (created by the feminists), but I've lived it."
I didn't use that definition to 'make myself feel better'. That's honestly how I feel, and according to the standard dictionary, the honest and true definition. So, perhaps I am a 'true' feminist, and those that you described as 'female supremists' are not?
Jay:
"A "true" feminist would spend her (or his) time and effort encouraging responsibility for women, don't you think? Talk about as rare as hen's teeth ...."
Actually, I do this a lot. Aren't I, in some way doing it now? Earlier I said:
"Women need to realize that they do this (I, too, have done it, and have realized it...) and then learn to get past it, and be more confident in themselves... not in how much better they are than other people...and when thoughts like that come up, think: 'Wait, this isn't the way I should be thinking...". One of the things I have always noticed about men, which made me gravitate toward many male friends in high school and college, is that they can argue one minute and be friends the next. Men tend to be thick skinned, avoid unnecessary arguments, and are more laid back."
What part of that statement above was condoning the 'catty' behavior of teenage girls? That whole paragraph I wrote explained how women need to realize what they're doing wrong and change it. Which is TAKING responsibility, and isn't stating that encouraging responsibility?
Also, in practicing what I preach (about equality): I got engaged last June. Our engagement was a mutual agreement, no down on one knee with a ring ordeal. After we discussed it and told our families, he asked when I wanted to go look for an engagement ring. I told him I didn't want one. Why make him spend $5,000 ish (those rings can be EXPENSIVE, as I am sure most of you know... probably having bought them), on a ring? We're not getting married so I can flash around a huge diamond, we are getting married because we love each other and want to spend our lives together. I don't even want to think about how many women want to show off their diamond just to make others jealous, etc. How many women do you know ('feminists' included) turned down a wedding ring in favor of being 'fair'?
"As a self-proclaimed feminist, can you name even ONE socially approved, legal form of discrimation against women?"
As far as I know... those have all been taken care of long before I was born.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
"I believe that men and women each share 50% of the blame for gender-related depravity."
I couldn't agree more!
January 31st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Alex said:
"Girls, for example, would find a nerdy, insecure boy and pretend to have a crush on them, only to laugh and say they were just kidding when he responded and got all his hopes up (this didn't completely happen to me, but it did happen to a few I knew)."
This did happen to me! In a way, rejection is the opposite of bullying, because it leaves one ignored and invisable. But then again, being rejected can be equally cruel. Sometimes it is not the salient abuse that leaves a wound........but rather the invisibility of the sword.
Masculist XY
January 31st, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Betsy Barton Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Bernie: (from Bernie to me, above): You are such a geek, only kidding
No duh! But I'm now at peace with my geekiness. Don't worry, I've got a Bernie joke waiting in the wings for a quiet day on the blog. :)
= = =
Cannot wait, looking forward to it! The best laughs that I usually have are at myself.
b
January 31st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Woops... I forgot to add something about why I chose my decision for an engagement ring as an example for equality... marriages need to be equal... even *GASP* wives staying home to do housework/take care of children and husbands going to work is equal! So is the other way around (men at home, women at work). I chose to mention that because I believe that making that decision was the start of a completely healthy and equal married relationship, even though it is a very materialistic/non materialistic (depending on how you look at it) decision and example
January 31st, 2008 at 5:09 pm
"Why? Isn't that the kind of slutty girl that men want? Isn't her promiscuous behavior a badge of her feminist liberation? Have you told her that if she keeps behaving like a skank, you can't be her friend anymore?"
Depends on what kind of men... self-respecting men, as far as I can figure, date/marry/have sex with self-respecting women. The opposite is true too. Actually, I have told her that I wouldn't be her friend anymore. Once I MADE her daughter a 3ft w - 2 ft h piggy bank.. completely indestructible if she wanted to bounce on it (she was 3). The best part of that piggy bank was it had no hole to take out the money. I told her that it was her daughter's college education piggy bank that she could break open when she goes to college. I explained that it if it was opened at any point I would know (since you have to destroy it to open it). Later that day she asked if when her daughter's older and wants to go to Disney world, is there a weak spot somewhere on it that they could drill to take money out. I said that if she thought that Disney World would make her daughter have some crazy epiphany for a career, which I highly doubt it, then go for it. Then I stormed out. I hear rumor it's in her parent's attic. I don't see how feminist liberation led to her being the way she is. She's enslaved by her behavior, not liberated by it.
"Because your friend is arguably not feminine, and now please explain why."
I see no reason why I should have to answer this particular question, seeing as how earlier I explained my distaste for her and her actions, and also said that she's the only woman I know that does that to herself.
As for backing up femininity... what is it to you? I think it differs for everyone, but the root of being feminine is to be characteristly 'woman'. When taking out submissive, which at one time part of femininity, it would be being mothering, nurturing, compassionate and understanding of others. That, in my opinion, is the basis for femininity. How is that gone? Can't someone be compassionate and nuturing as well as 'aggressive'? What good mother (and father) isn't all of those? Also, the more materialistic forms of being feminine would be to care about your appearance in a healthy way (always looking nice and clean etc.), and enjoy dressing up, romance, etc. I don't see how any of those have disappeared.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Ashley, welcome to the site! While I am at work and I have really limited time to review all the writings, I see some evidence of good ole' fashioned feminist misinformation in your reflections. Please don't take offense, every political faction creates and distributes misinformation to some degree, and to a higher degree when at war with another faction.
So, make the logical assumption that you have read books that contain propaganda intended to promulgate the gender war. I have read, and still read propagand about all sorts of things that are controversial in this society.
The particular thing I noticed about you is your view that gender rolls and preferences are primarily societal. While anyone can have an interesting blend of hormones, I will say that within my family, my kids showed very distictive characteristics differentiating boys from girls.
Now, I am referring to behavior that is not necessarily codifed as masculine or feminine, or at least I did not expect to see it turn out that way. But the differences were astounding to me, and a pain in the butt to be honest. My first child is a girl, and I didn't have any sisters close in age, nor did I really play with girls much. I guess I figured that there would not be that many differences. Boy was I mistaken. Ya know, I have had this talk so many times with other people that I know that it will be a waste of time to relate the difference, then have you try to make up a reason that it is somehow completely environmental. So I wont try. But know this, I am an engineer, a problem solver, a scientific test designer, a gardener and came from a family that breeds animals. I know a trend when it is loud, clear, obvious, and repeatable.
Note that just because I say there are clear behavioral trends between the two sexes of my kids, does not mean those same trends exist in you or your family. There are no known homosexuals in my whole extended family, yet I married into a family that has 1/2 of the male grandchildren homosexual. These things happen, not everyone has the same body chemistry. And, guess what, there was a strong correlation between damage tolerance and which boy turned out which way in that family, even at the 2 year old level. So while I am pleased that my boy is as damage tolerant as they come, I would have accepted him no matter what, just so you understand my take on that issue.
Anyway, welcome and be patient. Take your time and hang out a bit. If you get in a flame war, sit back and relax. Stay with us.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Ashley: "As a self-proclaimed feminist, can you name even ONE socially approved, legal form of discrimation against women?" As far as I know... those have all been taken care of long before I was born.
This being true, then the "true" definition of "feminism" aside, what in the world is the point -- what is there to gain -- by being a feminist?! If you continually seek to obtain "equal" rights for women when those rights have already been obtained, then you are "fixing" something that ain't broke, right? Since when is that a recipe for anything but a mess? We are in a mess, frankly, because feminists came along to fix something (and fix something, and fix something ... )that either didn't exist, or didn't need fixing in the first place (the dreaded patriarchy). So, to answer my own question, the only part of feminism that needs to remain, then, is the part seeking to impose appropriate responsibilities on women, correct?
Congratulations on your engagement! I truly wish you luck and happiness. But please be warned. Our feminist society doesn't make it easy to stay married. If you would like a piece of advice (from someone happily married for 28 years to his high school sweetheart), in order to keep your marriage "completely healthy," immediately abandon the idea of an "equal relationship." Why would you want to settle for "equal"? This is a recipe for continuing conflict, competition, and dissatisfaction. Instead, seek to be your husband's complimentary "better half," and seek to help him be yours, as well.
Again, thank you for your thoughtful commentary here.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Masculist XY: "Thanks for the open mind ashley. I don't mind feminism as long as it doesn't base its principles on the idea that men are an oppressor class called a patriarchy. To me, that is "passing the buck" or "scapegoating." I tend to believe that men and women coevolved.......both biologically and socially......to end up in the state we are currently in. So I guess one could call me both a masculist and a feminist.........kinda like Warren Farrell. I believe that men and women each share 50% of the blame for gender-related depravity. With men, this is sometimes manifested in chivalry.
But I do not like how feminism perpetuates certain myths (pay gap, patriarchy, the male abuser, rape hysteria, etc). For example, there is almost no media coverage of the tremendous emotional consequences of herjury (bait rape) which can be equally or more damaging than rape itself (where about 50% of alleged rapes may be false).
In the 70's the spotlight was on womens intellectual abilities. Now is the time for the spotlight to focus on male disposability............since males kill themselves 4x as often, comprise over 90% of prisoners, comprise over 80% of the homeless, live 5 years less, etc.
My basic belief is this: males are generally negatively stereotyped as lacking emotional intelligence, and females are generally negatively stereotyped as lacking intellectual intelligence. Similarly, females tend to be sometimes objectified as sex objects while males tend to be objectified as success objects. Society may respect men more than women..........but sadly, society seems to love, cherish, and protect women more than men. Alice Eagly has even documented this and called it the "women are wonderful effect." This kind of societal chivalry alludes to male disposability.
I believe there are three main mechanisms of misandry:
1). Chivalry
2). Illusion of patriarchy (the justification for anti-male double standards)
3) Myth that males lack emotions (the fish metaphor: if it is okay to eat fish since they lack feeling, this logic can be extended to men to justify male dispoability)
If you are interested in reading more about masculism, I recommend the following as good starters:
*Myth of Male Power: Warren Farrell
*Hazards of being male: surviving the myth of masculine privilege: Herb Goldberg
Thanks again ashley for your receptiveness for masculism."
Do I have a twin brother that my parents didn't tell me about!?? My thoughts on much of these matters exactly, XY. Good post.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Ashley,
You didn't source your assertions of how boys and girls were raised in the 1920s. It sounds nice, and I'm sure there is some truth to it, but it won't surprise me if it came from a feminist book.
You cannot socialize anyone to be something they are not -- not unless you use drugs and hyptnotism. I think feminists simply cannot handle that girls like anything feminine so they devise all sorts of concepts as to how girls are "socialized" for this and that.
And your anecdotal evidence about your friend's kids is just that. I'm sure lots of boys love dolls. I personally hate sports. But that does not mean the majority of boys are like this. In studies I've seen boys who get dolls make guns and hammers out of them and girls who get trucks make families out of them.
Also, if men and women are "socialized" into behaviors, why do we have sexual harrassment laws? Can't women just be socialized to be like men and grab butts and make nasty jokes? If it's that easy, let's nix those laws, then.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:55 pm
"Because your friend is arguably not feminine, and now please explain why." (roy)
(ashley) -- "I see no reason why I should have to answer this particular question, seeing as how earlier I explained my distaste for her and her actions, and also said that she's the only woman I know that does that to herself."
Proving my point exactly!
Women just do not get abstract, theoretical, or philosophical arguments!
Ashley, I was not asking about your particular friend. I was posing a question about the general principle by which women decide if they and their girlfriends are virtuous or skanks...
Ashley appears to be a wonderfully open-minded -woman-self-inscribed-on-a-screen but ...
"I see no reason" is her most cogent statement to date ....
Clearly.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Tony S: I didn't source my assertions about the 1920s because that knowledge came from a Folk Art class I took, which was taught by an older man. Mostly, the class advocated complimenting the differences of men and women and how it works or worked in societies that are not modernized by industrialization. Honestly, I took a lot from that class. At one point in Folk Art class, toys were discussed and the original concept behind a toy was to 'train' someone for the future. You give a little girl a baby doll so that she can mock-nurture her baby. You give a boy a set of tools or a tractor so he can grow up and build a barn and run the farm right? When toys were invented it was about utility. These aren't concepts laden with feminism, they are much older. But the utility of toys makes complete sense. All that childhood is really, is an upward climb toward adulthood. However, today's toys really do shape what boys and girls are growing up to be... take all the Disney princess b.s.... It is fun for a little girl to get primped and run around in a dress... but when she's older the Prince Charming syndrome is going to sink in... and they're going to want the Disney Princess Wedding Dresses (those really exist) and then they find out that after the wedding it's not 'happily ever after'.. and you have to work to get your happily ever after... so then it leads to bickering and divorce... so not good for women... not good for men right? Also, another toy that has come out on the market is this Barbie shop till you drop type of toy where you have a credit card with unlimited money on it for you to go shopping for Barbie's clothes... those little girls are going to grow up and bankrupt themselves or their future husband! It really makes me wonder why these toys are in demand! Also, there are a lot of toys surrounding violence for boys... and like someone said above, how there are more significant numbers of men in jail than women. Women are too busy spending money with their credit cards while men are shooting people.... (this is a generalization, I am in NO way saying that men are the only sex that commit murders in any way, but the gun toys and the stereotypical male aggression leads to more MEN being BLAMED for those sorts of things than women)
Also, to Jay, you're right about complimenting the better half, but since neither of us are interested in children and are interested in our careers... we are trying to keep ourselves equal at home to each other... but of course, I know what you mean where that can lead to a lot of bickering... we are very laid back so I hope that never becomes an issue. Thank you for the congrats and the advice!
" I think feminists simply cannot handle that girls like anything feminine so they devise all sorts of concepts as to how girls are "socialized" for this and that."
I think that feminists really have a problem that things are classified as feminine or masculine instead of just being. That's certainly my problem. Just because flowers are stereotypically female doesn't mean I don't like them. Also, it doesn't mean that men don't like them... it's a bit taboo to give men flowers... but if there were flowers on a vase in the dining room you have to admit it would brighten it up etc.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Apart from the unfortunate word with which she chooses to describe herself, I haven't been able to find anything significant to fault Ashley's comments. They're exactly the sort of things I have said and thought myself. Take the negative male stereotype in media - Everyone Loves Raymond is a good example. Ashley's right in her comments - both the wife and mother come across as complete control-freaks, domineering and unable to cast themselves as blameworthy. They're worse portrayals than those of the men, who at least have the sympathy of the audience for having to suffer them. I suppose what men most object to is what they themselves identify with, and that is other men. They object to them being routinely cast as clueless idiots afraid of the women in their lives.
I also have no difficulty with the idea of abandoning specific gender roles where there really is no reasonable basis for them, but that's not to say that all different gender roles must be eliminated. The hard question is always 'how do you know which ones?', and there really is no scientific or predictive way of finding out. It becomes political, meaning those with the most unreasonable fervour push,push,push until they generate enough ill-feeling, damage and resentment that sufficient numbers of people push back.
I have a personal experience of engagement rings that echoes Ashley's sentiments, but not her position of influence. Many years ago I dated a woman long enough and seriously enough to talk about marriage. She was a strident believer in women's equality, the pursuit of a career, the sharing of domestic work and the mutual consideration of each other's aspirations - all of which I had no difficulty with. But she was adamant that a diamond ring worth 3 month's salary was the price of engagement. This I found incongruous with her other beliefs - I insisted on no such thing from her. In my view, it's an anachronism. A relic from a not too distant but very gone past. That was enough to end the relationship for her (and I am thoroughly glad for that now), but it shows the unmentioned difference between Ashley's situation and mine. She got to make the decision and believes it the right one. I also believe it the right one, but few women would award me the right to decide.
That's where we are now. Feminist idealism combined with ill-considered self-interest has created its own counter-force.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:20 pm
"Ashley, I was not asking about your particular friend. I was posing a question about the general principle by which women decide if they and their girlfriends are virtuous or skanks..."
I think I've explained that... in parts but not clear enough. I can only explain my general principles for determining someone else's sexual endeavors. I cannot speak in behalf of any other women. So, my personal principles would be to have sexual encounters with someone you know well, have been in a relationship with for a significant amount of time, and limiting numbers of partners. Also, it's important to be responsible. Skanks are far from that.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Ashley I like your posts. If more feminists were open minded and fair then we could all get along. As far as femininity being a lost art form is concerned, femininity is more of an afterthought than a vocation. If you were to rate it against the pre-feminist past, femininity will have dropped on the priority totem pole. It isn't gone completely gone but it isn't as common as it once was.
For instance, feminism has produced an army of women who would die if they weren't allowed to compete with, trash and control men. Such behavior is the polar opposite of femininity. For too many feminists, success means becoming more like men. I think that's sad because femininity is beautiful and pleasant and it doesn't necessarily have to be sacrificed at the alter of feminism. Take the lyric "I am woman, hear me roar." I'm sure there are better ways to communicate. That attitude was rubber-stamped on the women's movement from the beginning and now too many women are trying to be like men. My point is that you can be a real, 100% woman without becoming overtly masculine. Most feminists seem to have trouble balancing the two.
Also, submission IS part and parcel of being feminine. To remove submission from femininity is like taking the cold out of ice. Submission is a good thing when employed properly. Everyone has to submit to something or someone. It's the law for a stable society. Men submit to the government, military, women, children and so on. Children submit to parents or at least, they should. The biggest problem with feminists is that they teach women to refuse to submit to any and all authority. So now we have a bunch of out of control women wreaking havoc on men, children, other women and society in general. I believe that the refusal to submit to anyone or anything is not only irresponsible and arrogant but also criminal.
Why is it that so many feminists are terrorists who would casually fire bomb a bookstore that didn't toe the feminist line or send death threats to the likes of Esther Vilar and company? My point is that women need to learn the fine art of submission. If they did the world would be a better place for all concerned.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
"I also have no difficulty with the idea of abandoning specific gender roles where there really is no reasonable basis for them, but that's not to say that all different gender roles must be eliminated. The hard question is always 'how do you know which ones?', and there really is no scientific or predictive way of finding out. It becomes political, meaning those with the most unreasonable fervour push,push,push until they generate enough ill-feeling, damage and resentment that sufficient numbers of people push back."
This completely echoes my thinking, and better explained!
Thanks for all the listening, conversing, and welcome! I'm signing off for the day. Take care :)
January 31st, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Ashley,
You still didn't explain why you identify as feminist when you are honest enough to admit that equal rights for women (and then some!) has already been achieved. Does it give you a feeling of security and power that you just don't want to give up? (Like the male "privilige" that is alleged to exist?)
January 31st, 2008 at 6:44 pm
(Ashley) -- "I think that feminists really have a problem that things are classified as feminine or masculine instead of just being. That's certainly my problem. Just because flowers are stereotypically female doesn't mean I don't like them. Also, it doesn't mean that men don't like them... it's a bit taboo to give men flowers... but if there were flowers on a vase in the dining room you have to admit it would brighten it up etc."
This girl is really exploring some interesting gender territory.
It does not matter to me whether she eventually decides one way or the other.
She is worth reading and listening to, and that is all that matters.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
As Roy said, rightly, a lot of men are finding women less desirable - or perhaps more accurately, finding relationships with women less desirable. I don't think we're doing a good job in explaining why that is. There is, in my opinion at least, a short answer and a long answer.
The short answer: what's in it for us?
The long answer. In the olden days, neither men nor women had rights or expectations. We had obligations and duties. Men were obliged to do right by their families by earning enough money to survive, and provide whatever comforts and luxuries they could afford, and to do that they worked long hours doing hard, physical labour in often dirty and dangerous conditions. Women were obliged to do right by their families by making sure they were all fed and clothed and their home was in good condition. That was also hard, physical work, making, mending and washing clothes by hand, scrubbing floors, trudging on foot around lots of different shops to buy ingredients for meals that had to be made from scratch. A significant proportion of men died in industrial accidents, a significant proportion of women died in childbirth, and a significant proportion of men, women and children died of TB or typhoid or some other disease. Life was tough, but we were mostly too busy and too tired to spend much effort being unhappy about it.
First thing that happened, was that rich women got bored. Their husbands were busy doing important things, while the home and children were taken care of by servants. These women had plenty of time to think about what was wrong with their position, and were educated so were able to articulate their concerns, and they were the first feminists. They saw that their husbands had fuller, more satisfying lives than they did, and they protested against that. They agitated for the vote, for better education, for the right to work in the professions, and they got most of what they wanted. Their husbands, whose work was important and stimulating, carried on happily doing what they were doing.
Then economic prosperity and education spread down the scale, and technology advanced. Clothes became more affordable, so women didn't have to make or mend them themselves. Washing machines meant they didn't have to wash their husbands' shirts, all filthy and greasy from the factory, by hand. Vaccuum cleaners meant no woman had to drag a carpet out into the back yard, hang it over a line and beat the dust out of it. Supermarkets, cars and convenience food meant that grocery shopping and cooking were less demanding of physical effort and time. And so women of the middle and working classes got bored, and were educated so they could articulate their concerns. Probably influenced by the earlier, wealthy feminists, they mistakenly believed that, because their lives were unsatisfactory, their husbands' lives were wonderful. They were wrong about that.
Also, what they advocated for was different. While they advocated for the right to paid employment, and got that, they also felt their husbands were neglecting their emotional well-being. It was no longer enough for a husband to do right by his family by being a good provider - he had to make his wife happy. They felt they were demeaned by having to take care of the home and children while their husbands were, they imagined, having a rare old time with the boys at work. The things that were once expected of women to do right by their families became unreasonable demands - she should not have to slave all day in the house for a man, and any man who asked her to was a male chauvinist pig. So men gained more obligations and duties, while women lost obligations and duties, and gained rights and expectations.
So as things stand, in a relationship between a man and a woman, her main preoccupation is what he's doing for her, and his main preoccupation is what he's doing for her. He must work hard and earn money to survive and provide whatever comforts and luxuries he can afford as before. He must also reassure her he loves her and values her, he must entertain her and satisfy her sexually, and he cannot expect anything at all from her in return, because that would be sexist. As the notorious book "The Rules" gave the game away by saying, all she has to do is turn up.
So, back to the short answer: what's in it for us?
January 31st, 2008 at 7:39 pm
"So, back to the short answer: what's in it for us?"
Umm, a very expensive limited-term access to a particular vagina.
Did I miss any other benefits of monogamy?
January 31st, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Patrick Brown: Nice Post! That's it in a nutshell.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Ashley said...
Women need to realize that they do this (I, too, have done it, and have realized it...) and then learn to get past it, and be more confident in themselves... not in how much better they are than other people...and when thoughts like that come up, think: 'Wait, this isn't the way I should be thinking...".
I have tried to make this point before that many sixties/seventies feminists were well onto this. They realised that self esteem and confidence is something that must come from within the individual. The subsequent "takeover" by extremists with their perpetual victimhood wasted this.
In many ways women are more stifled than they ever were but now it's the sisters who have been doing it TO themselves. Since the early eighties everything feminism has advocated has with it a fundamental implication that women are weaker, less competent and more in need of protection. Sound familiar?
There's further to go now than there was fifty years ago ladies.
Lewis said...
Lots of stuff leading up to...
Well a new gorilla comes in, goes for the fruit and gets tackled. "What the hell did you do that for?" screams the new gorilla.
"That's what we do around here."
Reminds me of something Frank Herbert wrote(Harq-al-Ada may be able to help here) about institutions that surround themselves with ritual and ceremony. That they tend to be things that lock us into the past. Churches would be the prime example of this but parliaments and legal systems also reek of it.
roy said
(Ashley) -- "...the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men."
As a self-proclaimed feminist, can you name even ONE socially approved, legal form of discrimation against women?
Just one, please?
And also one example since 1980 of feminism advocating something NOT involving different treatment based on gender.
=============================================
Viva La Difference.
Simply put men don't want women who are carbon copies of themselves.
In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.
=============================================
Stephen said...
The biggest problem with feminists is that they teach women to refuse to submit to any and all authority. So now we have a bunch of out of control women wreaking havoc on men, children, other women and society in general. I believe that the refusal to submit to anyone or anything is not only irresponsible and arrogant but also criminal.
One of the reasons I encourage sport for girls. I've long believed that many women have no concept of how rules and fairness are intertwined. More engagement in organised sports for younger girls could teach this concept very effectively.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Patrick Brown – what a fantastic account! I have never heard it expressed in terms of obligations and duties – I think you have a very good point.
You said:
“So as things stand, in a relationship between a man and a woman, her main preoccupation is what he's doing for her, and his main preoccupation is what he's doing for her.”
I suspect that you are approaching this from a “traditional” marriage perspective. Most women today work for financial gain outside the home – which I think is a good thing both for her and for him, in other words it is best for the relationship. It is also a clear sign that she doesn’t expect him to support her – but more importantly it is a sign that she wants to contribute financially to the family. If she doesn’t want to work and contribute equally - don’t marry her – in fact don’t even date her!
You also said:
“He must work hard and earn money to survive and provide whatever comforts and luxuries he can afford as before.”
Well, so should she. I earned more than my husband and more than my current male companion and there were certainly no complaints.
As to,
“He must also reassure her he loves her and values her, he must entertain her and satisfy her sexually . . .”
That goes for her too – it is meant to be about an equal partnership.
“ . . . and he cannot expect anything at all from her in return, because that would be sexist.”
Sure he can. I would argue it would be sexist to not expect her to make an EQUAL contribution. He has every right to expect her to make the best contribution to the relationship she possibly can – financial, emotional and in every other respect – otherwise it is not an equal partnership.
There will always be some women who are very happy and appreciative of being “kept” (and some men for that matter) but when these relationships end and the little woman walks away with all the goodies (and the kids) after having contributed very little herself – don’t feel cheated. You helped to create the beast. I guess if she felt entitled to stay home while you worked, she obviously had a sense of entitlement and thus had no qualms with the notion that you (or someone anyway) owes her and always will – and the family court will back her up on this.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I notice that nobody is admitting to having been a "mean girl" themselves or of being the the parent of one. Maybe that's a reflection of the demographic Glenn speaks to.
Given that absence...
Between 2000 & 2002 and for reasons of convenience I lived with my sister and her daughter. My niece was between thirteen and fifteen in that time frame. And yes, she was not only a mean girl she was also physically violent with other kids. My sister, and sometimes myself, were backwards and forwards to her school with great frequency regarding the physical stuff. The other "mean girl" behaviour was largely unaddressed and we've only really started to find out about it more recently. As others have suggested she was quite charming when dealing with adults or authority figures and would easily stir the protective instincts of those individuals.
Two years ago the niece and her boyfriend of the time shared with me for about six months. He was utterly devoted to her and did everything - cooking, washing, giving up his friends for hers etc as well as being their only income. She did nothing and even a request for help with the dishes(even from me!) would be greeted with a barrage of abuse. I was so glad when she dumped him(for a bloke who physically abused HER - karma's a bitch). He deserved much better.
The niece is now nineteen and mother to a one year old son by the abusive bloke. Of course she's moved on to her next mark and without my insistence to her the father's child would never see his son(he's actually quite good in this regard and quite paternal) nor pay any child support. The one year old otherwise spends virtually all his time with assorted grandparents, my other sister or myself. We grin and bear it - the alternative is worse.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Yes, i feel we need to not only start to recognize womens violence, but I would go as far as the need for an exhaustive Academic study of womens "violence by proxy".
I've seen and been subject to many women who want to see men fight for them, which is mans violence against each other, but also "violence by proxy" because it was incited by a third party, in many cases a women!!
When men hear an accussation of Rape, or domestic violence from a women,(true or false), and a man goes out and attacks another man, thats (violence by proxy), because it was actually incited by another party, (the women).
And in an age of anti violence hysteria, we should research some of the root causes of it, politically correct or not!!
January 31st, 2008 at 11:22 pm
It is complete nonsense to suggest that TV commercials, movies, and other productions and artifacts of the media, depict men and women in a negative light to an equal extent.
There is a way to categorize those persons who are likely to misinterpret an artifact or production, and their reasons for doing so:
On the one hand, there are the ideological feminists, who have a major agenda to push, and thus will complain about anything which could possibly be interpreted as suggesting anything negative about a given woman (real or fictional), or suggesting that women have any foibles whatsoever. These feminists are in the minority, but have been extremely effective in bringing about changes in legislation, influencing the courts, and taking other measures which have worked for women and against men; and a result of this has been the creation of an atmosphere of extreme misandry, and general ill will between men and women (an understatement).
On the other hand, we have the millions of women who identify with the feminist movement, but are not pursuing an ideology as such. This category covers an entire spectrum, from feminists who are wholly sympathetic to the men's movement and are interested in true equality (as opposed to "equity"), to feminists who could be called radical but are not driven by an extreme ideology. One thing that all these women have in common, is a significant amount of energy, and a large part of their sense of identity, invested in a movement which they perceive as unifying women as a class (this would also include women of too young an age to have experienced any significant discrimination or bias themselves, that is, women under approximately the age of forty, but who nevertheless have been indoctrinated into the feminist mentality. This has been accomplished, in part, by subjecting them to the feminist rewriting and revision of history, such as that in school texts, which has inculcated in students the notion that women are or were an "oppressed class").
These women are mainly reactive, that is, they are inclined to interpret media productions and artifacts as being in some way biased against women, even when it should be obvious to them that the bias is overwhelmingly against men. Many of these women will go through vast illogic and incredible contortions, to extract some misogynistic message from a given artifact or production (in some cases this even results in the interpreter contradicting herself).
February 1st, 2008 at 12:14 am
@Norman L.
"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence." Napoleon Bonaparte
In a similar vein people in all walks of life, say the media, get the occasional opportunity to influence something. Women have been oppressed for eons? Here's my chance to "do the right thing". I'll do my bit and slant things towards the "disadvantaged". In our PC ridden world some groups are unprotected and thus become the ONLY legitimate targets of what individually may be only small barbs. Unfortunately the dead weight of this is a crippling burden for many.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:28 am
Norman L: "These women are mainly reactive, that is, they are inclined to interpret media productions and artifacts as being in some way biased against women, even when it should be obvious to them that the bias is overwhelmingly against men." Excellent!
Celia: Always love your posts!
MCA: "I would go as far as the need for an exhaustive Academic study of womens "violence by proxy"." You go, Boy!!
Gwallan: "There's further to go now than there was fifty years ago ladies." Well said. Excellent observation.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:28 am
A little OT here, but I would highly recommend the Dune series....VERY complex book, explores about 6 themes simultaneously.
I have 2 daughters, the oldest one either is now or will become soon one of the bullies, I'm sad to say. She's very pretty, and is still (I think) the sweetest girl in the world. Problem is, she used to be pretty naive....now she hangs with some bad kids (keep in mind this is small town Saskatchewan, not downtown Detroit), and her attitude is changing. I do what I can, but I see her so infrequently I don't want to ruin all my time with her by "harassing" her. So, mostly I sit and watch and hope she comes through alright. I know the odds are against, but she IS a good kid, really. My youngest is a lot like me, she'll fly under the radar and be friends with the geeks, the jocks, the popular crowd, and the rockers all at once. Her friends are already that diverse.
I'm not surprised in the least by Betsy's story, or those of the others on here. Of course, that's because I was such a good "friend" in high school... :) I even had two sisters, one of whom took up part time hooking for extra cash. Even with all this, I still got blindsided by the behaviour....I for some reason figured women never acted like that to men. I know, strange li'l blind spot there....
The point is, most of us have experienced bullying. For me, it didn't happen until AFTER high school...hell, I was almost 30 before I truly experienced it. It took me a few more years yet to draw the connection between bullying and the state of adult relationships....problem is I have no real experience in dealing with bullying.
This is not meant to be a jibe of any kind to those that have experienced bullying. I truly have never been bullied, nor have I ever been "the bully" (I'm short, skinny, and fiendishly shy), and while the memories may be painful to put words to, it does bring at least some measure of understanding.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:11 am
Ashley, it's a little late in the discussion but I'll join the others in welcoming you to the board. I'm always encouraged to speak to someone who identifies as a feminist but at the same time is receptive of differing ideas in a respectful, non-condescending matter.
This is indeed an interesting discussion and I just want to add my 2 cents. I completely identified with Jay R when he said:
"Congratulations on your engagement! I truly wish you luck and happiness. But please be warned. Our feminist society doesn't make it easy to stay married. If you would like a piece of advice (from someone happily married for 28 years to his high school sweetheart), in order to keep your marriage "completely healthy," immediately abandon the idea of an "equal relationship." Why would you want to settle for "equal"? This is a recipe for continuing conflict, competition, and dissatisfaction. Instead, seek to be your husband's complimentary "better half," and seek to help him be yours, as well"
I can give you a little background into who I am. My husband and I have been married for 22 years. We both have careers and we have two great kids. Ashley believe me when I say that Jay R is spot on in his assessment of marriage. There are times in a marriage when (and this can be tipped in either way) things will be 30/70, 60/40, 0/100, and on occasion 50/50. And I say "on occasion" because literally it is "on occasion". Someone will always be doing slightly more than the other. Sometimes its me, other times its my husband.
I've come to realise that marriage is not for the selfish. Indeed, marriage is for the very long-suffering. There are times when you will have to sacrifice yourself for the good of your husband and or children and times when you will be so fed up you'll entertain the idea of a life other than the one you currently have. All this is normal, and I'm sure you already have a grasp of this, but it never truly hits you until you're in it. My experience of people who are often of a staunch feminist mindset (btw not saying this is you, just speaking generally) and who enter into a marriage with a feminist definition of what equality is about, such individuals are setting themselves up for conflict and eventual failure. This occurs because the feminist definition of equality is skewed one. It tells you that whatever demands you make are valid and unquestionable. It tells you that if your husband makes any protests to said demands he's trying to oppress you. It tells you you have a right to an unrealistic (though it's not presented that way) sense of entitlement. This mindset will simply not work, Ashley, especially when children are involved. You've mentioned that children are not in your future right now, but that may change someday. You never know.
Re: women losing their femininity ... in my observation and from what I've gleaned from male friends and colleagues, it's hardly about wearing pink, going to tea parties, loving shopping and the like. Rather it's the way in which you treat your spouse. You can be a ghost conqueror from 9-5 but when you get home you leave your armour at the door. You're able to make your husband a nice meal and not recent doing it. You're able to be appreciative and say thank you even when his standard of childrearing, housekeeping, whatever, are not up to yours. You able to take pleasure in ironing his shirts. In short, having good will toward him ... and not judging his efforts based on how it will solely improve your existence. Or sitting on pedestal because in your castle you wear the pants. No one likes to be pushed around, no one likes to be taken for granted.
For millenia, Ashley, the life duty of men has always been to see to women's needs. This trend remains even today in a world permeated with feminist thought. Men are burdened in their service of women, not in the traditional sense but in a fundamental, metaphysical sense. One example that comes to mind is this: 3/4 of our legislators and government officials are men, yet our laws are overwhelmingly biased toward women in many cases. More women may be pulling their financial weight, but men still are expected to fulfill all your other needs: your esteem needs, your safety needs, your sexual needs, your expectation of how he should be a father, husband, at his job and the list goes on. It is, in essence, all about us. Always have been (even in times when women were treated at their worst) and continues to be.
Indeed, feminism in and of itself is the epitome of this very phenomenon. I refer to Patrick Brown's insightful commentary. Women complained and men delivered. In a marriage a woman complains about the husband's whatever and he is expected to change if the marriage is to prosper. I think it's fair to say the same is not always true when the roles reversed. Some 40 odd years ago women delivered mass complaints and feminism was born. There continues to be something we will not be satisfied with, and it will forever be this way until men insists upon female responsibility.
As always I'm in agreement with a lot of Celia's comments. She's often able to articulate a lof of my convictions in a way I never could. I take exception, however, to her 10:16pm post above. While I do understand her sentiment, and completely agree with it for that matter, I would hardly say this is the norm of modern day society. Far too many women want to have equality without responsibility. Far too many women want to have the cake and eat it too. If this wasn't the case the purposes of a MRM would be invalid. Men would have no reason to think "what's in it for me"? And MRAs would not be ticked off by offensive boy-bashing ads because they wouldn't exist. But indeed they do exist because given a society trapped within the confines of feminist thought women will always be perceived to be inferior to men. And the odd thing about it is this: It's not the men who will think this way because men have historically always deferred to female demand. It's the feminists themselves!
Do stay with us a while, Ashley. I'm almost sure it will be an eye-opening experience for you if you do. I've always been sympathic to the MRM's cause, but when I started visiting here on an almost daily basis ... I learnt things I didn't know. I think you will too.
Betsy, I'm truly sorry to hear that you were picked on in junior high. Take comfort in your accomplishments and in the fact that you've probably become a stronger person. I was always a very steadfast child. Once I made up my mind about something, hardly anyone could sway me from it regardless of their tactic: bullying, gentle coaxing, threats. I've always had a spirit of routing(sp) for the underdog so I was a champion of the kids who had similar experiences to you. And you know what, many of them have turned out to be very successful, confident individuals ... just like my perception of you.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:17 am
menscollegeactivist.org said:
“I would go as far as the need for an exhaustive Academic study of womens "violence by proxy".
Good thought - I am sure that this would make an excellent PhD project. It might be worth doing a quick literature search to see if it has ever been studied. There are, after all, certainly examples from antiquity - Helen of Troy for example.
Thanks Jay R!
February 1st, 2008 at 1:19 am
Wow, that was a long one. As always my posts are often riddled with mistakes and typos. Do forgive them. I'm obviously not the best writer on the block.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:26 am
Dan M, interesting. I'd say one of the most unlikely (or perhaps not so unlikely) places bullying occur incessantly is in marriages. And the wife is almost always the culprit as far as I can tell. Emotional terrorism.
MCA, I told you you were something else. Great post.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:34 am
Davina – great post. I especially like –
“I've come to realise that marriage is not for the selfish. Indeed, marriage is for the very long-suffering.”
I also agree entirely with –
“I would hardly say this is the norm of modern day society. Far too many women want to have equality without responsibility. Far too many women want to have the cake and eat it too”
You are absolutely right it is not the norm – but I feel that men need to make sure that it becomes the norm. I think that they can do this by being sure they do not take up with self-absorbed, self-obsessed, self-loving partners – just don’t do it.
I know this is difficult when endocrine physiology is pounding logic into dust but your thought, Davina, needs to be foremost in their minds – “marriage is not for the selfish.” Both partners need to be prepared to contribute to the best of their abilities – which in essence, I believe, should be as close as possible to equally.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:04 am
@gwallan
"Never ascribe anything newsworthy to an unbiased media" -- R. Murdoch
February 1st, 2008 at 2:29 am
Celia:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but men don't generally have the same "wide range" of options open to them that women do. At least, that's the common perception. Ergo, men tend to take the best looking they think they can "get" straight to the altar. There's two guys at my place of work, one 19, the other 22 - both of these guys are contemplating marriage to their respectives. So I (surprisingly neutrally actually) coughed Pepsi out my nose and screamed "What the Hell for!?!?!".
Ya know....neither one could tell me what it would change for them.....
February 1st, 2008 at 3:56 am
Norman L. said...(well, Rupert anyway)
"Never ascribe anything newsworthy to an unbiased media" -- R. Murdoch
Damn. I thought we'd got rid of Rupert for good.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:10 am
Celia:
"Patrick Brown – what a fantastic account! I have never heard it expressed in terms of obligations and duties – I think you have a very good point."
Than you.
"I suspect that you are approaching this from a “traditional” marriage perspective. Most women today work for financial gain outside the home – which I think is a good thing both for her and for him, in other words it is best for the relationship. It is also a clear sign that she doesn’t expect him to support her – but more importantly it is a sign that she wants to contribute financially to the family."
I'm basing this on a lot of the modern marriages I've observed, where women do work outside the home, but mainly to get out of the house and have a social life. They spend their own money and a portion of their husbands, and are always nagging him to get a bigger house, or to take her on expensive holidays. I'm also thinking of young women who can't understand why their boyfriends won't give them an allowance so they can give up work, and young wives who phone their young husbands at work because they've just seen a commercial for something they want, and expect him to leave work that instant and buy her one.
"If she doesn’t want to work and contribute equally - don’t marry her – in fact don’t even date her!"
I quite agree. Hence I'm still single at 38.
Me: “He must also reassure her he loves her and values her, he must entertain her and satisfy her sexually . . .”
You: "That goes for her too – it is meant to be about an equal partnership."
Ideally, yes. In practice, it rarely happens. I live in the UK, where things don't seem quite so bad as in America, but it seems in America if you ask your wife to spice up your love life by wearing a pair of white shoes, it can be justification for homicide.
"There will always be some women who are very happy and appreciative of being “kept” (and some men for that matter) but when these relationships end and the little woman walks away with all the goodies (and the kids) after having contributed very little herself – don’t feel cheated. You helped to create the beast."
There's an attitude around that if a man is mistreated by a woman, he's as much if not more to blame for letting her than she is for doing it. A women who says with an abusive man is given understanding. A man who stays with an abusive woman is an idiot. My attitude, if I go out leaving the windows of my house open, and get burgled, I've been a fool, but the burglar is still a thieving bastard. You're right, men need to have their consciousnesses raised (to borrow a phrase from the opposition) about how little they're getting out of relationships these days, and stand up for themselves, but in a world where just about any kind of assertive male behaviour can be classed as domestic violence or sexual harrassment if a woman decides to call it that, there's going to be a hell of a lot of grief on the way.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:04 am
Davina,
Kicking fanny, again! Go girl! (can't write, my ass ...)
February 1st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Patrick Brown Says:
"...but in a world where just about any kind of assertive male behaviour can be classed as domestic violence or sexual harrassment if a woman decides to call it that, there's going to be a hell of a lot of grief on the way."
It will be worth it, and remember that women like myself will be joining the uprising. The time to put a stop to this outlandish behaviour is now, Patrick Brown. Why would you want to wait ... until they can jail a man because he looks like he's thinking about abusing his wife, children, hamster etc? Wait a minute .... they already have that law in place, VAWA! Probably not in the UK, but who to tell that it's not on its way in? Wasn't it you (or was it callum) who said wherever America leads the UK (I'd say the entire western world) follows? A very sobering thought.
Things have already progressed too far. Women need to be held accountable. Women like to bully men with shaming tactics and all matter of venom. Put down your feet and change will be effected. Don't take the coward's way out and just suck it up. It's human nature to take a mile when they're only given an inch. It will not stop until men make it stop.
Celia, once again we seem to be in complete agreement if that's your take. I misunderstood your earlier post to suggest that this was the norm. Considering the gist of your comment, it should have occurred to me that wasn't what you meant. What can I say? Sometimes the years catch up with me.
Jay R, thanks! :)
February 1st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Davina - "I've come to realise that marriage is not for the selfish. Indeed, marriage is for the very long-suffering."
Now, can I pose a very simple question?
Why would anyone recommend a way of living that is based on suffering for a long, long time?
I am assuming you mean marriage?
One would conclude then, that marriage is for the masochistic and self-flagellating versions of people?
The ones who need to suffer to believe that they are in love?
The domestically inclined robots who just want to have a nice, comfortable routine and nice, routine boring sex, once in a while?
Why? Why give this much credence to an institution (marriage) that FAILS most of the time?
Tell me, please.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Thanks Alex! I enjoy your posts too. Keep up the good work!
Masculist XY
February 1st, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Hi Roy, how nice of you to address me!
"Why would anyone recommend a way of living that is based on suffering for a long, long time?"
I can only speak for myself, and I can say it isn't always about suffering. Some of the best times in my life occurred during my marriage, and we continue to have some very good times. It's like a car, the more you drive it the more you pick up on its habits. If you think you're supposed to be guaranteed a life of bliss and cool lemonade just because you approach your union like you're doing someone a favour (society, god, the woman), dream on, brother.
"One would conclude then, that marriage is for the masochistic and self-flagellating versions of people?"
Roy, were you ever married to your girls' mother? Let me tell you this now. Marriage is just like--gasp!--life for the unmarried. Filled with ups and downs. Life in general brings out the masochistic and self-flagellating versions of people, not just marriage. You don't have to be "trapped" to be of this sort, you just are, and you might as well have someone to carp about it with.
"The ones who need to suffer to believe that they are in love?"
I don't believe. I am.
"The domestically inclined robots who just want to have a nice, comfortable routine and nice, routine boring sex, once in a while?"
LOL. "domestically inclined robots?" So that's what I am? A "domestically inclined robot"? That doesn't even warrant a comment. But I'll tell you this: there isn't anything remotely routine, boring, nice or "once in a while" about our relations.
"Why? Why give this much credence to an institution (marriage) that FAILS most of the time?"
A valid question. I'm pretty much of the opinion that marriage doesn't make much sense in today's world. Too much self-absorption, too little empathy. If my husband and I had waited to get married, we both agree that we probably would not have taken the plunge in this day and age. Not because I would feel any differently about him (I wouldn't) or he about me, but ours is a romance of a time long passed. A time that doesn't mesh well with today's ideals.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Davina said, "ours is a romance of a time long passed. A time that doesn't mesh well with today's ideals."
Blessings! I feel the same way about my relationship. I fell madly in love/lust with my wife while we were in high school, and I am even more in love today -- 30 + years later -- because of the ups and downs and bumps in the road we have weathered together. The best wine comes from seasoned barrels. Sometimes it makes me literally sick to my stomach to think that if we had not come together when we did, our chances could very well have been scuttled by the increasing infiltration of feminist unhappiness into society as we matured. Now my kids are out there as young adults. I am afraid for them, because I know that they want what their mother and I have. That romance -- love and commitment over the long haul -- is being tortured to death by feminist hostility is perhaps the primary reason that I am so consumed with antipathy toward feminism.
Feminism and family cannot coexist. Feminism has to go.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Davina, I loved your long post. If I seem to rant about feminist behavior it's because I hate the selfishness and immaturity that's exhibited. If more women thought like you the divorce rate would drop and the marriage rate would increase. The problem with feminists and women by proxy is that not enough of them think about what they should bring to a relationship. Men are expected to provide financially, emotionally, physically and so much more.
I finally figured out what maturity is. I believe that it involves personal responsibility, fairness and acceptance of the fact that you can't always have your way. But feminist ideology doesn't teach this view. Feminists expect men to give, give, give while they take, take, take. We all know that such a recipe leads to disaster. Again, all I want women to do is give men a fair shake.
"Feminism and family cannot coexist. Feminism has to go."
You said it Jay R. Cherry picking from feminism is like cherry picking from a rotting corpse. Feminism is poison to families and marriage pure and simple. I tried for years to find good in it. but once you get past equal rights there's no good left in it except male bashing and other irresponsible behavior.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:11 pm
@gwallan
"Damn. I thought we'd got rid of Rupert for good"
Did he die or something? I just made up the "quote".
February 1st, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Davina, you are really smart. But it is my sense that you have not yet been sufficiently wounded in your life to become really, truly insightful. (That is not an insult.)
Maybe you are lucky. Or still young. Or happily married.
You write and think well and yet - you have not even begun, let alone completed your analysis about marriage and where it is going.
You owe us all a longer post on this subject.
What do you think that the convention of "marriage" will be like in 100 years?
Based on your own story?
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:45 am
@Norman L.
I'm Australian. Rupert took up US citizenship years ago. Many of us were relieved when he left. Unfortunately, like a silent fart, some of it never entirely goes away.
Actually he's not too bad compared to some of the Aussie moguls such as Packer and Elliot.
If you made up the quote it wasn't a bad effort.
In Rupert's defence he wasn't much inclined to interfere in editorial matters. While he ran the Melbourne Age it was probably the most balanced of the Aussie media.
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
This thread is huge! I can't take it all in. Thanks to many of you for the kind words.
Anyway, to Davina's Feb.1 1:19am post, you are a very good writier. I think clarity is much more important than a lack of typos...
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
roy Says:
February 1st, 2008 at 10:59 pm
"Davina, you are really smart. But it is my sense that you have not yet been sufficiently wounded in your life to become really, truly insightful. (That is not an insult.)"
Why, thank you, roy. I'm honoured that you think I'm smart.
At my age, I've lived a completely charmed life with not a care or disappoint to speak of.
On a more serious note ... I'm not sure of your definition of "sufficiently wounded", but without getting into the intimate details of my personal life what I can say is that my life has not been without its share of trials and tribulations: maritally, personally, professionally ... you name it, I've probably been through it. Consider a sheltered, naive young woman married by the age of twenty, twice a mother by the age of 24 and a globetrotting wife/mother and career woman by the age of 30 ... If indeed I lack insight it isn't because I haven't lived but because of the prototype of who I am.
The thing with me is this, Roy: I do not as rule entertain grandiose ideas/expectation about any human being. As a result it's very difficult for any given person to deeply and truly disappoint me. And I'll tell you why ... the answer is simple really. Humans are prone to certain types of behaviour depending on their gender. Whether this is due to biology or social conditioning is arguable, but I believe once you've gotten a grasp on these core differences you're well on your way to some level of marital contentment.
I'm a dreamer, an idealist ... and very rarely do I succumb to melancholy. Thats probably why you have that impression of me. I keep my cynicism in check and focus on what is ideal for me. And yet I have an uncanny talent of not dismissing the big picture ... for eg: I knew years ago, from the start of the feminist movement that we were on the cusp of societal disaster. Obviously, it wasn't because I was against women's rights (I mean really ... how self-flagellating can one get?) but because I knew in giving women unstemmed privileges at the expense of another, one sets oneself up for retaliation and resentment.
The problem with a lot of women today and why they say they experience such grief in their marriages is indeed because they buy into these grandiose ideas about marriage and about their spouse. Aside from the valid reasons why a woman might leave her husband: abuse, child molestation, fraud etc, too many women live their marriages in constant pursuit of an unfathomable dream. And I single out women because I do believe men have already grasp the foolhardiness of this consept. Hence a man will cheat on his wife but very very rarely will he leave her for the other woman. Men seem to understand that the "dream" doesn't exist. Leave your wife and it is unlikely that you will find a woman fundamentally different from her. Sure, this time she might be a redhead instead of a blond, she might like tulips while the wife liked roses ... and given that social deviants (bad people) are, for argument's sake, in the minority, how fundamentally different is one woman from the other? To me, that explains why the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women and not men. Because they (men) get this. Best doesn't get "bester".
In marriage a smart spouse realises and accepts that their partner evolves with the times. My husband today is not the same man he used to be in 1979. Why then would I throw a hissy fit because he doesn't show me love and romance in the same way as he used to back then? So many women have said to me "he's not like he was in the beginning..." That's rich. I doubt the husbands think they're like they were in the beginning either and they don't complain half as much about it.
By our next anniversary, DH and I will both have another light-bulb experience into each other's psyches(sp). And it is this insight, this realisation that will bring us closer together. Not the superfical reasons that feminists tout. Having a man who contributes to the household beyond his financial responsibilities is a bonus. It's not, should not, be the only measurement of marital happiness. It comes back to this 50/50, 30/70, 60/40 consept I discuss earlier.
To me this is really simple and it is there to see for those who have eyes to see. I think a lot more women would've realised this had they not been so indoctrinated with feminist thought.
"Maybe you are lucky. Or still young. Or happily married."
You're right, I'm indeed all of the above!
"You write and think well and yet - you have not even begun, let alone completed your analysis about marriage and where it is going. You owe us all a longer post on this subject."
I disagree. I don't "owe" a soul on these boards a thing. But I enjoy the vast majority of your philosophies, so I'll do my best to give you an answer.
"What do you think that the convention of "marriage" will be like in 100 years?
Based on your own story?"
I don't really have much more to say on the convention of marriage. I went into detail above. As for where marriage will be in 100 yrs? Michael H made an interesting comment to which I did not get a chance to respond because the thread was closed. It's on the "RubyThea" thread. He puts an interesting spin on the matter of family in the future and I find his analysis intriguing. He said:
"To me, this is just the beginnings of the replacement of the two-parent family, first by one-parent families, and then by the government. I agree with John Waters when he writes, "they'll go after the mothers next."
This evolution toward an insect-like society may not happen for centuries, and it may not happen until some technological advance is achieved. However, it may not happen altogether, if we demand parental rights."
I can easily see this happening. Now that feminism has contributed to the destruction of the family unit, MRAs are now going after those who advocate for so-called single parenthood. Chivalry, male deference to female demand will cause the government to go after "the big bad men" once again for trying to hurt the "little women". After all children are far better off anywhere else than with their natural fathers.
Incidentally, this scenario speaks volumes about what the state of marriage will be in the future ... non-existent or something very close to it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay R, Stephen, Betsy ... many thanks!
Stephen, your posts often make me smile. I can't say I always agree with everything you write but I know your heart is in the right place. Too many people fall away from the cause because they claim to see no way out. They're complacent and lack conviction. I wish more men would have your passion about the MRM.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Glenn, I know you know that by an broad measure of either mental health or academic performance adolescent girls significantly outperform adolescent boys. This is a very important long term issue, I'm kind of bewildered that you almost never discuss it on this blog, and then this post? What's going on?
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
devnull you don't have to answer this but I once knew of a guy that went by the handle devnull and I'm wondering are you from NC?
February 4th, 2008 at 2:40 am
No, I'm not that guy..
February 4th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
"So many women have said to me "he's not like he was in the beginning..." That's rich."
You nailed it there, Davina. And I love how the (usually feminist) advocates of easy divorce like to phrase it: "He's not the same man she married..." which gives a woman a pass to renege on all promises made.
This whole notion of "soul-mates" and everyone having a perfect match out there somewhere who'll effortlessly make them happy if they can just find them is creating untold misery in modern families. There's no such thing, ladies, so have a heart and please don't drag your kids through hell trying to find it. For the most part there are only matches that are better or worse than average, and they all need lots of work.
August 4th, 2008 at 4:07 am
LOSINTO GUAPA
BESOS