The war on men - page 3

by herring_RN 1,538 Views | 30 Comments Guide

The battle of the sexes is alive and well. According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine... Read More


  1. 4
    BTLRN, I can relate! I actually thought Beck was sort of clever when he was on CNN Headline News but when he got his show on Fox it seems something snapped in his brain . . . I saw him drawing something on a chalkboard that looked like the potato bug from hell with all sorts of arrows and ---- oh my! When he started naming political appointees as subversives sent from the brain of Mao to bring down the USA right there from the Oval Office I was truly alarmed!These war on men stories only cause me to yawn. Does anybody remember Marabel Morgan? Anita Bryant? Phyllis Schlafly? (actually I kind of like her)Hell, they could give lessons on the topic -- this lady on Fox is merely a piker!
    Last edit by nursel56 on Dec 3, '12 : Reason: forgot Phyllis
    SailorRN2012, herring_RN, tewdles, and 1 other like this.
  2. 6
    Quote from nursel56
    BTLRN, I can relate! I actually thought Beck was sort of clever when he was on CNN Headline News but when he got his show on Fox it seems something snapped in his brain . . . I saw him drawing something on a chalkboard that looked like the potato bug from hell with all sorts of arrows and ---- oh my! When he started naming political appointees as subversives sent from the brain of Mao to bring down the USA right there from the Oval Office I was truly alarmed!These war on men stories only cause me to yawn. Does anybody remember Marabel Morgan? Anita Bryant? Phyllis Schlafly? (actually I kind of like her)Hell, they could give lessons on the topic -- this lady on Fox is merely a piker!
    I hear Phyllis Schlafly every night on my way to work(Eagle Forum).

    Yeah, Rush lost me after calling housewives "prostitutes," and Glenn when he called our American President "Hitler!" I didn't vote for him, but now he is again the President of my country. I am ashamed of the gridlock on both sides- but I am VERY concerned of both of their views on women (Dems and Reps). I know the GOP has the longest to go, but women dominated this election, and I'm pretty sure they are the backbone of the Government, Nation, Family, and Church.

    I hear the roar!!!!
    SailorRN2012, herring_RN, nursel56, and 3 others like this.
  3. 5
    Quote from BostonTerrierLoverRN
    I hear Phyllis Schlafly every night on my way to work(Eagle Forum).
    I actually met Phyllis when I lived in Boulder. She came to speak at CU. I went to lots of stuff when I could. Saw Jerry Brown there in '92 when I was a big supporter of his presidential campaign. I'm not doctrinaire in my politics, as you can see!

    I read a biography of her written by a liberal feminist fully prepared to trash her but she ended up begrudgingly admiring her. She is no cream-puff, that's for sure! She was a ballistics tester in WW2. When she was campaigning against the ERA she got a lot of crap about not being a lawyer, so she went out and just earned her JD with an attitude of sort of tossing the degree at them as if to say, "can you just shut the hell up about the lawyer thing now?" :-)

    Anyway, the audience at CU was just about all antagonistic toward her and I have to say she handled it all with grace. There was a large contingent of men dressed in drag in the audience as well, and of course they all lined up to ask questions at the end. What a hoot! She gave as good as she got and in the end most of them were laughing. There were a few very serious Women's Studies students with their notebooks who managed to maintain their stern demeanor throughout, though.

    At the end I asked her if she was upset by some of the audience and she waved her hand and said, "oh no", it was fun!"
    Last edit by nursel56 on Dec 4, '12 : Reason: text editor monster attacked my post
  4. 0
    Fox News Op-Ed Says Women's Nature Is To Be Dominated By Men | ThinkProgress

    Fox News has published another sexist op-ed by Suzanne Venker, the author who became infamous for attacking a fictional “War on Men.” In the follow up piece, Venker argues that women are naturally men’s inferiors.The author believes the crudest of crude gender stereotypes are built into male and female brains, arguing that women “like to gather and nest and take care of people” while men “are hunters: they like to build things and kill things.” As a consequence, she maintains a man’s place is in the office; “his” woman should simply “surrender” to his rule:

    Drivel and pablum for the paranoid.

    Interesting that she is writing rather than a man. I guess she does not subscribe to her own words.
  5. 0
    Let's call a truce in the war on men | Fox News

    And another viewpoint on the opinions of the same author


    Oops. Different Author, Same topic. VERY different viewpoint.
    Last edit by tntrn on Dec 7, '12
  6. 0
    quote from http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2011-...e-of-feminism/
    The idea that women belong at home in the kitchen, thrilled by every move the children make, might seem, well, a little retro.

    But Venker is part of a chorus of women calling for a return to "traditional" values — women who are bright, college-educated, modern and capable, who argue that men belong in the rat race and women belong at home, raising the next generation of breadwinners and stay-at-home moms.
    Well, as my mother says, staying home is lots easier than WORKING, for those women who just don't want to work, lol. Psychologists say that some values tend to alternate and skip a generation. Maybe that's what's happening. There also seems to be a cycle in the USA of women gaining ground in politics, workplace, and finances, and then some movement coming along to criticize them and take away their power, and push them all back in to the subordinate homemaker role. Part of it follows the economy: Booming economy with lots of jobs ('20s, WWII, '60s-'80s) favors women working, and recession/depression makes the men antsy and then women get pushed back into that unemployed homemaker stuff again, "for the good of the children, and the Family." ("You'd do it for Fam-uh-lee" http://youtu.be/RVGFGmoltDs except the townsfolk sing "Fam-uh-lee") But, it's really to take women out of the workforce so that men can have an easier time getting jobs, for which they might not be the best-qualified applicants, either.


    The shrills can keep their SAHMammahood and perpetual servitude. Personally, I prefer the rat race. I love it, as a matter of fact. I'm a woman who decided at age 6 (no lie) that almost anything is far more intellectually interesting than motherhood and raising children. And I vowed pretty much at that point to never get trapped into either marriage or motherhood. I did marry, once, not until age 36. And I had a notion when I met that man at age 32 that I wanted a child, but he stopped that. So, no kids for me. And no real regrets. I still spit on most of the "traditional values, " because they are too restrictive and they look ridiculously limiting, to me. Someone gave us Protestants contraceptives so that we can get something done in life besides childcare and housework. ;-)

    The problem that I run into now that I am divorced, is all the men I meet are very anti-marriage. And most of them are that way because they financially supported a SAHM and had too many kids and not enough money, and then cheated on the wife and wound up divorced and debt-ridden. And their traditional values are what sunk 'em.

    Well, here's a tip: Do what engineers do: ONLY marry a spouse who is educated, and works outside the home, and earns something close to what you earn, and have none-to-one child, no SAHM, and if either of you brings assets or pre-existing children into the marriage, have a prenup. Then if you split up, there's is likely to be an equitable distribution, and enough assets to split that neither person goes away empty-handed. Those child support payments are enormous in some states, so limiting to 1 kid really keeps that manageable, too.
  7. 7
    In my opinion, the problem lies in defining the issue as an either/or choice. I don't see anything morally, emotionally or psychologically wrong with traditional gender roles if that's what makes both partners happy.

    It's the social imperialism that says "there's only one way to be and by gum you're gonna be that or we'll throw rocks and pass laws to punish you" that creates the problem.

    Whatever happened to live and let live?

    And if some men don't choose to partner up because they can't find someone with the same gender-role expectations, then let them stay single. It's hardly a fate worse than death, y'know. But it's their choice ... not something that women did to them.

    This is going to be a fairly incendiary comment, but I'm gonna make it anyway: blaming non-traditional women for the choices made by traditional men sounds a great deal like the justifications used by abusers ... "look what you made me do!"

    Whatever ... I'm a dyke ... anything the retro types have to say about heterosexual marriage has nothing to do with me. Thank the Goddess!
    herring_RN, tewdles, Rose_Queen, and 4 others like this.
  8. 3
    Quote from heron
    In my opinion, the problem lies in defining the issue as an either/or choice. I don't see anything morally, emotionally or psychologically wrong with traditional gender roles if that's what makes both partners happy.

    It's the social imperialism that says "there's only one way to be and by gum you're gonna be that or we'll throw rocks and pass laws to punish you" that creates the problem.

    Whatever happened to live and let live?!
    I agree completely! But the women's studies movement seem to put down women who do choose more traditional roles. And that is wrong also.
    Medic2RN, herring_RN, and tewdles like this.
  9. 3
    Quote from tntrn
    I agree completely! But the women's studies movement seem to put down women who do choose more traditional roles. And that is wrong also.
    Yes, although I question the generalization, I agree that it's wrong-headed no matter who's doing it.

    My one reservation is this: the attempt by conventional society to enforce gender roles no matter what has caused incredible damage to women who don't fit those roles naturally. Drug and alcohol addiction ("mother's little helpers"), the "problem without a name", the abuse suffered by my partner (who was raised by a woman who never wanted children, but was forced into it by social pressure).

    It's a long, looooong list.

    Describing and understanding this damage is a large part of women's studies and is NOT the same as "putting down" traditional gender roles.
  10. 1
    Quote from heron
    My one reservation is this: the attempt by conventional society to enforce gender roles no matter what has caused incredible damage to women who don't fit those roles naturally. Drug and alcohol addiction ("mother's little helpers"), the "problem without a name", the abuse suffered by my partner (who was raised by a woman who never wanted children, but was forced into it by social pressure). .

    But anecdotal, according to many people here on AN. I was raised in a community that was traditional in almost every way, and even looking back, can't see more than one or maybe two questionnable people.

    I think if we stick to let people do what they are drawn to, things would be much better. No scolding of those who do or those who don't regardless of who is doing it or not, and what they are doing.
    herring_RN likes this.


Top