T Nation

Feminism's Devolution From Hoaxers to Whores

Thought some of you would find this interesting;

Columnist Maureen Dowd posed those questions in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine in an essay adapted from her forthcoming book: “Are Men Necessary: When Sexes Collide.”

Entertaining as usual, Dowd explored her premise that many women end up unmarried and childless because they’re successful by reviewing women’s evolution since her college days, which happen to have coincided with my own. We both came of age as women’s lib was being midwifed into the culture by a generation of women who felt enslaved by homemaking and childbearing.

Now, in the span of a generation, all that business about equality apparently isn’t so appealing to a younger generation of women, who are ever inventive as they seek old ways to attract new men. Dowd writes:

“Today, women have gone back to hunting their quarry, with elaborate schemes designed to allow the deluded creatures (men) to think they are the hunters.”

Dowd, herself unmarried and childless, wonders whether being smart and successful explains her status. She observes that men would rather marry women who are younger and more malleable, i.e. less successful and perhaps not so very bright.

No one vets the culture with a keener eye than Dowd. Her identification of trends - especially the perverse evolution of liberated women from Birkenstock-wearing intellectuals into pole-dancing sluts - is dead on. But while she sees women clearly as they search for identity in a gender-shifting culture, she doesn’t seem to know much about men.

Men haven’t turned away from smart, successful women because they’re smart and successful. More likely they’ve turned away because the feminist movement that encouraged women to be smart and successful also encouraged them to be hostile and demeaning to men.

Whatever was wrong, men did it. During the past 30 years, they’ve been variously characterized as male chauvinist pigs, deadbeat dads or knuckle-dragging abusers who beat their wives on Super Bowl Sunday. At the same time women wanted men to be wage earners, they also wanted them to act like girlfriends: to time their contractions, feed and diaper the baby, and go antiquing.

And then, when whatshisname inevitably lapsed into guy-ness, women wanted him to disappear. If children were involved, women got custody and men got an invoice. The eradication of men and fathers from children’s lives has been feminism’s most despicable accomplishment. Half of all children will sleep tonight in a home where their father does not live.

Did we really think men wouldn’t mind?

Meanwhile, when we’re not bashing men, we’re diminishing manhood. Look around at entertainment and other cultural signposts and you see a feminized culture that prefers sanitized men - hairless, coiffed, buffed and, if possible, gay. Men don’t know whether to be “metrosexuals” getting pedicures, or “groomzillas” obsessing about wedding favors, or the latest, “ubersexuals” - yes to the coif, no to androgyny.

As far as I can tell, real men don’t have a problem with smart, successful women. [b]But they do mind being castrated[/b]. It’s a guy thing. They do mind being told in so many ways that they are superfluous.

Even now, the latest book to fuel the feminist flames of male alienation is Peggy Drexler’s lesbian guide to guilt-free narcissism, “Raising Boys Without Men.” Is it possible to raise boys without men? Sure. Is it right? You may find your answer by imagining a male-authored book titled: “Raising Girls Without Women.”

Returning to Dowd’s original question, yes, the feminist movement was a hoax inasmuch as it told only half the story. As even feminist matriarch Betty Friedan eventually noted, feminism failed to recognize that even smart, successful women also want to be mothers. It’s called Nature. Social engineering can no more change that fact than mechanical engineering can change the laws of physics.

Many of those women who declined to join the modern feminist movement learned the rest of the story by becoming mothers themselves and, in many cases, by raising boys who were born innocent and undeserving of women’s hostilities.

I would never insist that women have to have children to be fully female. Some women aren’t mother material - and some men don’t deserve the children they sire. But something vital and poignant happens when one’s own interests become secondary to the more compelling needs of children.

You grow up. In the process of sacrificing your infant-self for the real baby, you stop obsessing and fixating on the looking glass. Instead, you focus your energies on trying to raise healthy boys and girls to become smart, successful men and women.

In the jungle, one hopes, they will find each other.

LINK: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/kathleenparker/2005/11/02/173922.html

First of all, allow me to point out that the link you supplied is a site that leans to the right (e.g. Republican). This may explain the ‘tone’ of the article.
Having said that, allow me to explain a few things:

The young women of today do not know what it is like to be told they cannot go somewhere or do something (and if you are white male, you have not experienced it either). They have no idea of what it is like to be told they cannot major in engineering or auto mechanics because that’s a man’s field (insert EMT or fireman here also). They don’t know what it is like seeing a sign above the entrance to a business that says “no women or children allowed before 6pm”. They don’t know what it is like not to have birth control. They don’t know what it is like to have no options when birth control fails. They don’t know what it is like to be told that they do not qualify for a job because they are not a man. They don’t know what it is like to be turned away from the weight room because it is for men only. The young women today have no appreciation for the freedoms that were hard fought for them by those hardline feminists. I am old enough to remember and have experienced many of these things. The direction this country is headed in regard to womens issues causes me great concern, as many of the young women who are voting today may be voting away our hard earned freedoms.
Yes, like many other movements feminism has it’s extreme faction. So does the civil rights movement, the religous right and even Mothers against Drunk Drivers.
I have never cared for the word “feminst” and have never considered myself one. I am more of an “equalist”. I just want to be treated equally with the same options and opportunities that men have without judgements being based upon my sex. I am just like you except that I am female. No more, no less.

[quote]dahun2 wrote:
Men haven’t turned away from smart, successful women because they’re smart and successful. More likely they’ve turned away because the feminist movement that encouraged women to be smart and successful also encouraged them to be hostile and demeaning to men.

I like smart successful women. I hate women who claim they are “independent women” as they act like my reason for being is to do tricks like beg, stay, sit and various other canine related activities. I have experienced one woman supervisor who seemed so busy trying to prove how much better she was than every other person near her position, that she is viewed as overbearing and coldhearted. I think many women, especially in the workplace, don’t have a clue how to work as a team. They become overly controlling as if the goal is complete antiseptic procedure.

I would imagine it is much the same for many in the dating scene. I seem to run into two extremes, either the control freak who proclaims her “independence”, or Ms. Save-a-Hoe who was simply waiting on someone with a penis to walk by who had a steady job and a car made within the last 10 years or so.

I like athletic intelligent women. However, I can’t stand those who seem to forget that they are women and that I still get to be a man. This is one reason some guys may turn to younger women. Maybe there is more of a chance of her “maturing” into understanding what a partnership is instead of trying to find someone whose only purpose in life is to please her.

I admire women who are not afraid to step out of the conventional female role. It’s the women who quietly walk the walk and talk the talk without needing the publicity or notoriety who get my respect.

The screeching feminists only make it tough for the rest of us who get charaterized as “feminazis” for daring to point out sexism in the workplace, school or on this forum for that matter.

i think that all “-ism” is a great problem

so femminism is a problem. it solved some trouble, it gives to woman more freedom and that is good. but also create a society were one sex is the enemy. and that isn’t right.

i like smart ppl. so i like smart woman. i dont want to stay with a dumb girl. but i cant stay with a girl who wants me to beg. or who think to be better than me just because i am a male.

Dowd is a shrill harpy I am not surprised she is unmarried and childless.

It amazes me that so many people make their living examining relationships between men and women and yet have no better understanding than anyone else.

Keep in mind that Maureen Dowd lives and works in NYC. NYC is a world unto itself as far as dating and relationships go.

Things that are important to folks in NYC would make people in the rest of the country chuckle.