We're All in This Together
I have two little boys and can’t quite get my head around the idea they are disadvantaged. They are male. They are white. They are Jewish…okay, some haters will discriminate against them for Heeb-related issues. Nevertheless, they are otherwise privileged simply for being them.
Should I still be concerned?
Fight Club came out the same time Stiffed reared its ugly head. Movie and book tried to convince us that men weren’t so large and in charge anymore. In fact, the movie fictionalized what happens when men are reared by independent women, feel unimportant, are discarded by society or valued only for their appearance. Apparently, they beat the sh*t out of each other and blow up buildings. Right. Several other books suggested that men were angry at a changing role both within families and society in general. They were no longer in control. American Beauty hinted at this as well - when women get strong, men get weak.
Please. Men can evolve just like everyone else. They're no longer needed as hunter/gatherers, but they're still needed. At least until vibrators start mowing the lawn.
Kidding. Calm down, C.
A few months ago, Newsweek wrote an in-depth report on boys. The article implied that as we focus on girls and champion their advancement, boys get the short end of the stick. Seriously? Have they been in a classroom lately where boys are three times more likely to get called on than girls? Just because females are catching up, doesn’t mean males are slowing down. It’s thinly veiled sexism to suggest otherwise. Smacks of the same “minorities are taking over the country” mentality.
Men run most governments and businesses throughout the world. They aren’t just in power, they are power. Are we to believe that power is currently under attack?
I don’t buy it.
A new website has formed to help our brothers. Obviously, troubled boys exist and need help getting through this thing called life. (Males commit more crimes for a reason.) If doctors and therapists want to help boys sort through emotions and avoid victimizing others, that helps all of us. These concerns are not new. My daily Torah reading is filled with stories about men from the Biblical era who needed a strong, male deity to set forth some rules on how to behave properly. Male issues have nothing to do with changing roles or Calvin Klein ads.
Get to the core of the issue and stop implying strong women or (the dreaded word) feminism is to blame. Such a theory encourages scapegoating and misogyny. That won't help anyone.
Including our boys.
posted by kate @ 6:04 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
nice post
yes nice
Thanks for the shout out.
I don't believe it's support of women, or the implication that changing roles are a result of said support, rather, the cultural encouragement of sexual liberalism that has led to the moral degradation of society.
It's more about sex, and the demands (or lack thereof) placed on men to get it, than it is about women entering male culture and society. Most conservatives (educated ones anyway) will tell you that women have been integral and crucial to the growth and success of the American economy and technological development, including our cultural and communal developments. The female role in American society is, and always has been, what set America apart from the rest of the world, even the rest of the free world.
It wasn't until feminism was hijacked by the sexual revolution of the 60's that the roles (and expectations) women and men have in our society began to break down, and the results of that breakdown are all around us -
Violent criminal activity, poverty, drug use, welfare, single parent households, abortion.
Thank you modern feminism for such wonderful gifts to society.
Wow - that's a lot to lay at the doorstep of one movement. You didn't even it out with the positives either. What a shock.
I disagree with your assessment of the 60s so-called sexual revolution. That was only one small part of the feminist movement (and the part that made the least amount of difference for women like me). Modern feminism may have contributed to problems, but it also helped to shape a generation of independent women. We have more choices now as a result of brave men and women who spoke out for equal wages, opportunity and against discrimination and harrassment. I could go on about education disparities that don't exist nearly to the levels of the 40s and 50s, but you'd probably feel lost and confused.
This movement wasn't all good or all bad. No matter which side of the aisle you're on.
I suspect you know that. Just playing dumb, right?
I don't dispute the arguments for equal wages and opportunities, or the arguments against discrimination and harrassment. I support those positions too. But lets not kid ourselves, women aren't being held back in any organized cultural way, not by any stretch of the imagination.
The sexual revolution may have started out as one small part of the feminist movement, but like I said, it hijacked the movement from that point forward. And for you to claim that the feminist movement provided you with any additional opportunities in your life is a joke. Some women are independent because of the feminist movement, some women are naturally independent and strong people and I think you clearly fall into the later group. You didn't, and don't, need any help from Uncle Sam to get ahead. But many, many, other women with much less opportunity, education, income, and support structure, and who in a traditional role would have sought out responsible, moral and able men to build a life with, are in squander after having have been lied to by the sexually charged feminist movement for more than a generation.
They've been told they don't need men, they can, should and have a right to live life on their own. But the rub is, life is hard. It isn't as easy as Gloria Steinam and your hippie friends want it to be. It takes cooperation, communication and teamwork. It takes men. Now, many of those women are dependent on the government, with millions of their children aborted, and many of the would be fathers are dead or in prison for drugs, murder, assault, rape and other violent criminal acts. How are they better off?
I believe I was clear above when I said, "the cultural encouragement of sexual liberalism that has led to the moral degradation of society." Women are being counseled, at a very young age, to choose free sex and cultural liberalism by identifying it with strength and independence, equality with boys and men. What a lie. What a shame.
I didn't leave anything out that doesn't belong out. Women need men. We need women. Women have the ultimate power in this arrangement, sexual cooperation. When it's given away freely without expectation of support or fidelity. When the government says, "don't worry guys, well take care of the women you abandon." Where is the incentive?
What you want is power, and the feminist movement destroyed the lives of millions of women to get it.
woah
I am strong and independent because of women that came before me - mom, grandmother, aunts, - and the example they provided. I am able to do much more than they were due to other women who came before me - Biblical and historical - who paved the way, knocked down walls and burst through glass ceilings. And all those women mentioned did not appeal to only Uncle Sam. They appealed to your forefathers, too.
You take your own views - or views that work well for many people - and try to apply them to everyone. It can't and shouldn't work. Not every woman needs a man. And not every man needs a woman. History and the Bible are full of whole societies that operated under a traditional structure and suffered from horrible problems, abuses, etc. Way before feminism came along.
We have to refrain from a one-size-fits-all mentality. It harms people. The government isn't saying they'll take care of anyone - not really. I'm saying that as human beings we should take care of those less fortunate, but that's not what this argument is about.
Movies that portray women as empowered because they can sleep around are made by conservatives and liberals alike. I agree that it's a mistaken concept. This liberal has never equated strength with promiscuity. Quite the opposite really. Women whoring themselves and believing, falsely, that sex equals power have been around long before feminism as well. They just didn't have cameras on them.
My point is this - these problems have been around since the beginning of time. Blaming a movement that happened only thirty years ago is silly and counterproductive.
...moral degredation of society...you crack me up.
I think the sexual revolution has been hijacked here. Unlike Kate I did benefit, and I'm here to say I am certainly 100% glad I didn't wait for marriage. No regrets, not one, nope. But free sex-which was neither free, nor as prevalent as some would have us believe, wasn't even the main point of the sexual revolution, much less the women's movement. The so called revolution didn't just support people who wanted to sleep around without benefit of marriage. It also, much more importantly, helped married people of both genders who wanted to procreate on their own schedule or not at all.
It's amazing how you can be right and wrong at the same time, and so often.
I think this is the first time you have turned to the Bible for support in a discussion with me. I have to say I am a bit, uhm, taken back. I can only assume you think I taking my policy argument from some Biblical perspective? While the Bible, and organized religion in general, support the seperation of roles among the sexes, it is not without good reason, but it is hardly the reason I take such a position.
I would like to point out there are plenty of non-Christian religions that have seperate roles for men and women. Even forest people and desert people on opposite sides of the world, with no organized religion at all, still seperate the roles for men and women. You should not be so presumptions as to assume in the last thirty years feminism came up with a solution to this sticky gender role problem you think we have here in America. It's not a problem to apportion responsibility and expectation upon the genders. It's actually very smart and constructive.
Secondly, You are correct, not every woman needs a man. I think I made that point already. I don't remember saying everywoman needed a man, should have a man, or that every woman should do everything the same. It is quite obvious some people have more advantages over others and are freely able to organize their life however they like, pursuing whatever ambitions they wish. But, it is often due more to having mom's, grandmothers, aunts, and other family that came before them preparing the way, serving their roles. I don't discredit that and I believe I made a similar argument. I also believe that is definitely not the situation for the majority of women, and I think you know it. When this generation starts going south, it can't be blamed on the lack of opportunities or society or a male power dominated culture. That's comical. Your feminist paved the way, and for some women it will work, but for the majority, it won't. I believe this is why cultures and societies have been organizing in roughly the same patterns for the past 4000 years. It works.
I will concede that in my original statement I thanked feminism for many things, and it may have appeared I was claiming none of them existed before feminism. I apologize for the confusion. But, I didn't say life was free from worry, pain, abuse, violence, misery, poverty. The facts regarding the increase in abortions, violent crime, drug use, fatherless families, poverty, etc. from the 60's through the mid-80's are well known. And while there have been some downturns in those trends briefly during the 90's, and again recently, there is certainly more of it now that your feminist have had their way. Our immigration problems will only excacerbate those trends. Traditional male/female roles, and societies that are built upon them, are not free from bad events, but they are certainly less exposed to them.
The government isn't saying they'll take care of anyone - not really. As a liberal democrat I can't believe you said this with a straight face. It doesn't justify a response.
Movies that portray women as empowered because they can sleep around are made by conservatives and liberals alike. What conservative makes movies about women who sleep around? For that matter, what conservatives make movies? Again, I doubt you can claim this with a straight face.
these problems have been around since the beginning of time
I concur, these problems have been around since the beginning of time. Only, they've gotten worse in the last thirty years.
Port Tampa - Well said. Just because twenty-three or twenty-four (can't remember) years of celibacy worked for me, doesn't mean it would work for everyone. Unlike C, I do not hold a totalitarian world view.
C - Cut the sh*t. Life has gotten better for minorities, women, men, the elderly and everyone else compared to thirty years ago. It's not perfect, but it ain't as bad as it was and you know it. Separate gender roles did not work and that's why we're evolving and testing alternatives. Going back is not a choice. Thanks though.
You're right about the movie industry. What was I thinking? Keep forgetting that no conservative money-makers work in Hollywood. Not at all. Just us Commie Jews.
Now hush...The Office is almost on.
Bummed! What's this "Teachers" crap they have on instead of "The Office"? So sad.
I'm all messed up about it.
So are you and Mr. C gonna battle it out live on Public Access Cable before you move? Or will you just get a room instead?
according to some people, feminism was a major cause of 9/11, as well as most of the other evils of modern society.... all I can say is WTF?
Post a Comment
<< Home