"Like reverse sexism, this belittling of men seems to be 100 percent acceptable."
The Anchoress pointed out an interesting article called "Shrews" by Katrina Fernandez:
Without getting into a lengthy dissertation on the Feminist Movement and Women's Liberation, I will jump straight to what we've reaped as a result. In our zeal to be declared equal we've surrendered much that distinctly marks us as feminine. Worse, we continue to perpetuate the most awful of stereotypes—only magnified by 100. The most damning of these is The Shrew.....
Like reverse sexism, this belittling of men seems to be 100 percent acceptable. It's even used as the tie that binds in building female relationships—commiserating over the "miserableness" of the male species. I understand it can be hard to make friends when meeting people for the first time, but making your husband the butt of jokes is not the way to endear yourself to me. It's not just insulting to your husband but to me as well, a single woman who would love to have a spouse to promise to honor and respect. It's like waving a steak in front of a starving person and proclaiming it tastes like garbage and tossing it to the floor.
posted by Helen at 12:03 PM
49 Comments:
Since the 70's, I've noticed the sitcoms started with the men-as-idiots meme; now I'm starting to see signs that isn't the default. I made it a point to avoid the shows that made men as asses, now I'm starting to see positive roles. Not that I'm against mockery and japes; I just don't want my entertainment time filled with propaganda for a Hate Men agenda.
"Strange game. Only winning move is not to play."
Another matrimaniac carping for her lonely, shriveling ovaries. At least she has the sense to blame the sisterhood. Pity that she forgot to condemn the Divorce Industry. Feminism may have (and it did) make the male the licensed joke he is, but it was the lawyers and judges that made marriage a toxic death trap that men avoid.
It does take two to tango. People (male or female) don't turn into shrews after the divorce or even after marriage. The signs are all there well before anyone ties the knot. If you are unhappy with your choice in mate you might consider what motivated you to select that personality type and also how many time you are going to repeat the process.
And if your date spends the entire first date whining about his/her exspouse then clearly they aren't ready for a new romance, or maybe they will never be ready. Best to move on, 6 billion people in the world you know.
6 billion? not that many marriable...or even companionable.
regarding warning signs...yes, the clues are generally there, and the feminists freak when you itemise them in conversation or print.
for us second or third marriage types when dating the clues are; harping about exes, bragging about the financial benefit of divorce, trips with girlfriends, excessive jewelllery, clothes, shoes and purses with big logos on them, hair and nails on steroids....you get the picture.
and the same clues are in place for the non-married guys, only less obvious.
and what is it with women wearing those skin-tight black tights that leave nothing to the imagination?
desperation setting in?
@Cham: My "choice in mate" is not relevant. The law is. And the law incentivizes no fault divorce.
I don't blame the male or female. It's the law I hold in contempt.
Dr. Alistair said:"and what is it with women wearing those skin-tight black tights that leave nothing to the imagination?"
Amen to that, Dr. I was shocked at seeing the words "love pink" scrawled across the backside of women's pants. It does strike me as overtly desperate, and sad.
@Cham said... It does take two to tango. People (male or female) don't turn into shrews after the divorce or even after marriage. The signs are all there well before anyone ties the knot.
___________
I think you underestimate how a person, without "changing," behaves completely differently in different situations as the power structure changes.
Imagine a four eyed dork telling a bodybuilding to "shut up," to which the bodybuilder replies "screw you." Then the dork pulls out a gun and says "shut up," now the bodybuilder replies "yes sir." Same man, same order, same giver... different response.
You are right that people don't change, but their reaction based on their power versus the power of others does. Too bad the law couldn't treat us equal, the world would be a better place.
@Trust: Astute observation! You must be a student of Game Theory (advanced mathematics). The strategies of the players will evolve according to new variations of the playing field.
My forecast: The further men plummet in society, the fewer plausible husbands will remain at the top. And when the basic dude with a good job becomes surrounded by women who vie for his affections, he will soon wake up one day and see George Clooney looking back at him from the bathroom mirror. When that happens, he will say to himself, "Why would I want a wife when I can have a harem?
Feminism is killing the Western world. Literally.
Belittling men is acceptable? It's the Zeitgeist of our time:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/09/29/the-x-chromosome-factor-women-truly-are-the-tougher-sex-study-finds/
and more...
http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/28/why-women-are-better-at-everything/
This "End of Men" crap is going to get front page treatment for a loooooong time.
trust, the game theory model illustrates the potential for a woman to get a ring and slam the door on a man, knowing the power balance has shifted...and this has killed off the idea in men's heads that marriage is a good deal.
certainly there are men who still think marriage is a good idea, i know i did and still do, when using my new wife as an example...but the women i dated and the majority of those still on dating sites that my friends and clients report to me about are living in a fantasy land of cinderella and prince charmings...which makes me laugh out loud every time i think about it.
reminds me of a video. i'll try to find it, i think we need a laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu6x-0dJrqE&feature=related
mission accomplished.
@zorroprimo and dr.alistair
________
I do pay attention to game theory. Not because I like it (I don't), but because it works (unfortunately).
I wasn't thinking it in my post, though. I was thinking about how (so-called) family law has impacted the marriage dynamic.
Think of this phrase during a marriage argument: "I'm cutting you off." What does it mean? Well, that depends...
If you heard a husband say it, you'd assume he was cutting her off financially.
If you heard a wife say it, you'd assume she was cutting him off sexually.
In other words, women marry largely for security whereas husbands marry largely for intimacy (husbands don't marry for sex, it's part of intimacy, but that's another topic).
It used to be to have a wife, you had to be a husband. And to have a husband, you had to be a wife. Now, the structure is such that if a woman cuts off her husband, he has no recourse. If a man cuts off his wife, she can use the power of the government to force him to hold up his end of the bargain even when she's off with a thug or a pool boy.
I don't care that "not all women are like that." Even a good intentioned woman who is disgusted by marriage law will unconsciously be swayed in her demeanor by the options and power when her desires feel at risk. And before anyone calls me a sexist, if we put this kind of power behind men, women would suffer as well.
Anyone who thinks marriage law and how it shifts the dynamic isn't a factor in the deterioration of marriage, I have some beachfront property in Barrow, Alaska I want to sell you for cash.
Cham: "And if your date spends the entire first date whining about his/her exspouse then clearly they aren't ready for a new romance, or maybe they will never be ready. Best to move on, 6 billion people in the world you know."
I am a person who has never been able to know what romance is. But even if I hadn't given up, I would steer clear of anyone who is a user or an abuser, because if you're with someone like that it isn't love. Fortunately, for you guys who still have some hope at finding someone, I do think there are plenty of decent women out there. I don't share the view of some other guys that "all women" are like this or that.
GREAT video, Dr. Alistair!!
On a different point that has come up in this thread, if a man is unable to predict how a potential spouse will behave after marriage (whether women become shrews after marriage or the signs are there but he's unable to perceive them), why would he even consider marriage?
I've never had much of a problem with this but I have short friend (5'6") and the viciousness and brutality of some women toward him was just astonishing to watch.
"It's like waving a steak in front of a starving person and proclaiming it tastes like garbage and tossing it to the floor."
Of course the steak tastes like garbage, you've been throwing on the floor all day...
@: "It's like waving a steak in front of a starving person and proclaiming it tastes like garbage and tossing it to the floor."
_______
I like Dan's play on this, but i'll take it a step further...
Even the finest dining loses it's flavor when you are constantly shitting on it.
(A corollary: even a modest meal tastes a bit better when you spice it up a bit.)
There's a lesson in there....
No fault divorce was first signed into law by that great bastion of concervatism Ronal Reagan, when he was governor of California. He did so after his first wife accused him of causing her to suffer psychological distress during their divorce. The rest of the states soon followed suit.
As it stands now, the marriage contract is a license for abandonment, betrayal and bankruptcy. These days, for all her talk, a woman does not make a commitment. She makes a promise with the option of changing her mind.
Presumptive paternity is the real deal killer. I'm a man. I know what I'm doing. I fully understand that every time I engage in a sexual relationship a child could be the result. I accept my responsibilities without question and will support and raise every child I conceive. But there is absolutely no way that I'm going to agree to a fully binding legal contract whereby there is even the remote possibility that I might have to pay for another man's bastard. Period.
And now she doesn't like it. I really don't care. She isn't worth 50%. She certainly doesn't deserve presumptive paternity. And if she insists on the absolute right to change her mind, how about I change her mind for her and just say no.
Look. You want to live together? Fine. Set up an LLC. Every paycheck deposit half in a bank account and half in the corporate account. Use the corporate account to purchase income generating assets. Use the bank account for general living expenses. This way your money is protected. Even if you do get married, she is in no way entitled to corporate funds, only community funds.
If you share money, if you share property, if she performs sweat equity, technically you're married under common law. All she has to do is go down to the court house and claim common law, even 10 or 20 years after she moves out, and she is legally entitled to half of everything from the day she moved in to present. That's the law.
The only way to avoid that is to keep detailed records and separate bank accounts. Proof that will stand up in court that you paid half of the rent or mortgage, the taxes, the utilities, the groceries, etc., and she paid the other half. In other words, evidence that you did not share money or property. Also keep a detailed record of the chores performed by each of you so that she cannot claim sweat equity.
As for presumptive paterternity, she is only entitled to that if you do indeed marry her. But for the life of me I cannot imagine why any man would agree to that bad deal, not with the attitudes of women these days.
Marriage is out of the question. You pay your half, she pays hers. You do your chores, she does hers. If she gets pregnant, be a man and support and raise your child. If she runs around and gets knocked up by some other guy, then he is responsible. You are only required to pay child support for every child she conceives if she is your wife.
You like apples? How do you like them apples?
I just finished fisking this piece on my blog... :)
@MarkyMark:
Dude, just read your post. That was awesome!
Sucks when the worm turns, dunnit? Back in 2003 I foretold the day when men would just stop playing the game, when it all got too much and the rules were so obviously stacked. And the increasing shrillness of women isn't helping them at all -- if anything, it's making the situation worse.
Here's the truth of it, feministicals: men don't need women -- they just need sex. To most men, you're just the life support system for that.
People keep talking about how women don't need men, just their sperm. Well, let me tell you: if the Cherry 2000 model ever became reality, we'd be gone without a second glance.
"Imagine a four eyed dork telling a bodybuilding to "shut up," to which the bodybuilder replies "screw you." Then the dork pulls out a gun and says "shut up," now the bodybuilder replies "yes sir." Same man, same order, same giver... different response."
Reminds me a joke I heard in HS in the dark ages of 1970 or so.
Q. What does a bigoted southern shopkeeper say to a 7' tall Zulu who enters his shop carrying a spear?
A. May I help you, Sir?
Yep. People behave differenly depending on the situation. In HS my friends hated it if a girl wandered by the tennis courts while we were playing and stopped to watch. My serves became much harder to return....
Prior to marriage, take notice of:
1. Choice of friends, peer group, and pop culture.
2. How she responds to friends, peer group and pop culture.
In my experience, it's not the individual women driving this.
It's that the media and pop culture feed the peer group and friends who create the assumption of "normalcy" - i.e. that the "shrew" persona is okay (and admirable.) I contend that this does not - and almost can not - emerge in a vacuum.
(Add in parents to the above equation, of course.)
Why would I want a wife when I can have a harem?
Oscar Wilde is claimed as the source for Bigamy is one wife to many. Monogamy, the same.
A harem of these harridans? that would be like taking the orginal problem and multiplying it by a factor of 10 if not higher!
Kim: "Here's the truth of it, feministicals: men don't need women -- they just need sex. To most men, you're just the life support system for that...People keep talking about how women don't need men, just their sperm. Well, let me tell you: if the Cherry 2000 model ever became reality, we'd be gone without a second glance."
Kim: "Here's the truth of it, feministicals: men don't need women -- they just need sex. To most men, you're just the life support system for that...People keep talking about how women don't need men, just their sperm. Well, let me tell you: if the Cherry 2000 model ever became reality, we'd be gone without a second glance."
That's not true, Kim. Men aren't all walking erections just looking for a hole to fill up. Most men are more complex than that. Most want much more than sex, and some don't want sex at all.
Kim, women massively underestimate the degree to which men desire genuine intimacy, emotional, intellectual and physical. Men want someone who desires and respects them, even, yes, adores them, and for whom they can do the same in return.
as a man, i want an attractive, funny, enthusiastic partner who shares as many of my values as possible without losing her identity, and is flexible about the ones she doesn't share so that we can have disagreements that don't gravitate to silence.
i found just that woman.
and her shoe fetish is on par with mine!
so yeah kim, we don't just want a hole to fill up, and we know that women are not that...it's just that many of them are bat-shit crazy with pent-up aggression toward a group of people who they have no idea about...other than the fact that all they want is sex.
and this makes them very difficult to deal relate to.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
um... you reap what you sow?
" Most [men] want much more than sex, and some don't want sex at all."
Yeah... we call that kind of man a "woman".
reap-sow....exactly, so why do women give themselves the permission to be absolute tyrants.
Honestly, over the long term, it's just too much trouble. And not worth that trouble.
Most women don't want men; except to show off to their girlfriends. Most women find sex tedious and unfulfilling. Most women would rather spend the afternoon with their girlfriends than their boyfriend.
Yawn - gay men don't care. We generally like other men, enjoy sex with men very much and except for our gender disordered bretheren-prefer the company of men.
I feel sorry for straight men, they really are victims of their sexuality - why else would they put up with the abuse?
cinti, how right you are. most women are bullish cows looking to dominate any way they can...and when it comes to men they need to treat them like children to mother them.
what a woman cannot bear is adult masculinity, it angers them and they have to tear it down.
the prevailing media attitude is to portray men as broken, fat, stupid and childish, not to condition men to behaving this way (though this is happening) but so that women will watch shows and commercials where women dominate and win in traditionally male roles.
my wife, as good to me as she is, still shows these tendencies occasionally, and so i tell her i'll arm wrestle her for it, and if she loses she has to (insert favour here).
that makes her smile.
thankfully, as much as she says she's a feminist, she really likes men.
i thank her dad and her uncle for that...and her mother for being a cunt.
bmmg39: " Most [men] want much more than sex, and some don't want sex at all."
Kim: "Yeah... we call that kind of man a 'woman'."
So...you first imply that men are only interested "in one thing," and then when confronted with men who aren't like that you suggest that they aren't really men. You write something even more absurd rather than question your original premise. Typical.
1
白蟻
老酒
回頭車
棧板
熱水器
汽車旅館
大陸新娘
植髮
整形
電波拉皮
It does take two to tango.-Cham
But it only takes her* to make a unilateral divorce.
*Females cause over 2/3rds of divorces. Read and learn. (Feminists insist it's higher than 90%.)
I was having pie and coffee the other month with two old friends (both female) that I have known for over 35 years. One of them, the sister of an old and dear friend who passed away, the other, an ex lover.
The friend who was an ex lover told me that she and the other woman with us are the only two females each of them know who have never cheated on their husbands. I don't know, perhaps it is a coincidence or a common thing in southeast VA. All I know is the reported (admitted) instances of women cheating on their husbands is low. As a man who has been single by choice for a long time, after being married for a long time, I know full well that is true. I am inclined to believe almost everybody lies.
No fault divorce was first signed into law by that great bastion of concervatism Ronal Reagan, when he was governor of California.-GawainsGhost
False. At least one other state already had it.
Still, your remark illustrates a deep flaw in many conservative men: a desire to be a white knight riding to the rescue of a female, even to the point of being foolish and acting rashly. Then-Gov. Reagan supposed he was only sparing females who were going to divorce anyway some grief in divorce court. He didn't realize he was re-defining marriage by enacting unilateral divorce into law. (He was stupid about abortion too while he was California's governor but that's a topic for discussion elsewhere.)
"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."
That was the female-empowerment slogan, wasn't it?
Let me give you a rough timeline. Here is what has happened:
1. Historically, societies tended to have laws which enforced sexual codes of conduct for the purpose of keeping society relatively sexually moral; this was thought important for civilization because it produced stable families with sufficient numbers of healthy, productive offspring.
2. But we created a society which, at least in its philosophical basis, understood that the use of force by one person against another is morally unjust except in the defense of innocent persons against wrongful acts of force or fraud. This is a good and liberating thing.
3. But this meant that government can enforce laws against murder and theft, but not against consensual sexual immorality.
4. In the absence of government-enforced sexual morality, we needed to rely on individual self-control and cultural pressure to remain a sexually moral society, able to produce stable families with sufficient numbers of healthy, productive offspring.
5. Individual self-control lingered for a while because America's churches were willing to continue defining sexual morality to their parishoners and exhorting them to faithfulness. This also helped to prolong cultural stigmas against sexual immorality.
6. But liberal theologians within America's seminaries called traditional sexual morality into question, undermining the consistency of teaching within America's churches. The consistent and ancient Christian teaching that there was no such thing as valid remarriage after a divorce from a Christian spouse went first. After that, the teaching of self-control and sublimation instead of masturbation and lust was lost, and premarital fornication was first winked at, then eventually assumed to be normal. Finally homosexuality was normalized, a process which is still ongoing.
7. Contraception in particular helped guard against the usual consequences of sexual immorality, thus removing a barrier to infidelity and fornication. Oral contraceptives simultaneously produced reduced libido in women, and barrier contraceptives reduced the transmission of the hormones and neurotransmitters in semen which, among our ancestors, had helped produce "bonding" in married couples.
8. Progressive social engineers advocated for welfare benefits for unwed mothers, the abolition of lawsuits for alienation of affection, the institution of no-fault divorce, the legalization of pornography under the banner of free-speech, and normalization of homosexual activity, all with the best of intentions.
...continued...
...continuing...
9. Feminists in particular worked to rig the system in favor of women in hiring, in alimony, in child-custody cases, in shifting the burden of proof for rape and sexual harassment prosecutions, and in the cultural double-standard for insulting jokes about
men as opposed to women.
10. Respect is a critical component in relational health for men; it ranks up with physical affection as a "love language," so to speak. A man who does not feel respected, does not feel loved but rejected.
THE RESULTS:
Men are now coming to the conclusion that they need women like a fish needs a bicycle.
Formerly, men sought to marry, and even to take on crushing burdens for the sake of women, because....
(a.) They thought the reward of respect and physical affection worth the sacrifice; and,
(b.) They thought sexual release outside marriage was immoral, likely to produce social stigma, and sometimes was illegal.
Now, they think differently. They ask, "Why not use porn and strip clubs and, if I can afford them, prostitutes, when I want sexual release? Or, if I can get sex without commitment, why not sleep around?"
And the liberal churches and society give no answer.
(In their defense, some churches do give an answer. But rarely are their leadership sufficiently trained in apologetics to give a reasoned defense of their faith, or knowledgeable enough to articulate trickier doctrines. Instead, they typically rely on a sort of well-intentioned emotional propaganda, a sort of religion-as-therapy, prefaced by music which also seems to neglect doctrine and challenge in favor of heartstring-tugging catharsis. This is off-putting to many men, not to say shallow.)
And men ask, "Why should I risk marriage, when it has even odds of winding up in divorce, with an ex-wife taking half my income and my children from me, in exchange for a few years in which she treats me with disrespect and is only infrequently sexually interested in me?"
And the feminists and progressives, who have long pooh-poohed men and traditional male virtues and the importance of marriage anyway, shrug and look bored by the question.
So men shrug. They say, "Screw this, I'm going fishing." (Or hunting, or video-gaming, or bungee-jumping, or whatever.)
It is, at this point, up to the churches to be hardcore: Loyal and Faithful and Challenging and Fiercely Truthful. Without that, men, will consider them irrelevant, feminized, decayed.
And, it is up to women to be sufficiently attractive to men, not just physically but in personality and attitude, to woo hard-to-get men back towards family life. Without that, men will consider them superfluous at best; and more realistically, treacherous, poisonous, gold-digging, peace-stealing vipers.
In the meantime, when women are sorry about this turn-of-affairs, two idioms come invariably to mind:
"Be careful what you wish for, you may get it."
...and...
"You reap what you sow."
I hear this on NPR last night. Sorry no transcript.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=141089058&m=141089049
But at the end of the story the teacher tells of a student who's father returned from deployment to find is wife, his truck his child and probably all his combat pay were gone off with another man. A man that was supposed to be his friend. Oh and she was pregnant and the father found this out from his child.
First of all the friend has no honor. But the woman? OMG!
So here is a young man doing what he needs to do. To serve his country, work hard and support his family and this is what he got for it.
The world is FUBAR.
By now you've heard Betty White's last word on this. "Why talk about growing testicles. Testicles are tender. Grow a vagina; they can take a pounding."
By now you've heard Betty White's last word on this. "Why talk about growing testicles. Testicles are tender. Grow a vagina; they can take a pounding."
Blogger Cham said...
It does take two to tango. People (male or female) don't turn into shrews after the divorce or even after marriage.
True that. But everyday the couple wakes up to another opportunity to support their marriage or not to support that marriage. What will each partner feed, and what will they neglect? In my case, my ex-wife chose not to nurture our relationship. Yes, her negatives were present during courtship, but so were some positives. One grew, the other didn't. I believe she's sorry I left her because she wanted to leave me: she is sorry she didn't get a chance to steal more before I left.
Chem: your comment is too self-righteous and self-serving. People change, and not always for the better. How was I to know my ex was going to turn into a dementor?
r.c. well written history of the decay of morality and family in our society.
my wife wonders out loud when her 26 year old son will marry.
he and i know the answer is never.
Post a Comment
<< Home