eye roll so hard they may get lost in my brain

There’s this new article up on Fox News, called The War On Men. It’s written by Suzanne Venker. I want to read it as satire, but there’s absolutely no sign that it is anything but a serious discussion of what’s wrong with women that make men not want to marry. One of the specific points is that “women aren’t women anymore.” This after interviewing hundreds, if not thousands (author’s words), of men and women. In doing so, she’s found a subculture of men who don’t want to get married because of women not being women. (One wonders how large this subculture is, out of the hundreds, possibly thousands, of people she interviewed that included men and women, but she doesn’t discuss what anybody but this ‘subculture’ of men say).

According to Venker, one of the issues is that more women than men are getting college degrees and making money, which has changed the relationship between men and women. Apparently in a bad way. Also, women are angry and defensive and think of men as enemies. No, I’m not making this up. This has caused women to shove men off their pedestals (I wasn’t aware they had any) after feminists (Oh those evil equal rights for women rabble rousers!) convinced them to climb down off their pedestals. Which should apparently have been cozy enough and happy enough places to be for any real woman (as opposed to the new ‘woman’ who isn’t really a woman anymore, according to this subculture of men that Venker is quoting). Now, poor poor men, have nowhere to go. What do they do without their pedestals?

Venker says:

Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.

So okay, because women are working and going to school, and unwilling to put up with traditional ‘values’ that rob them of equal rights, they are pissing men off (well no duh–any guy who wants to control and contain women for his own use and pleasure would get pissed if he couldn’t have his lordly way). Poor men can’t love women who might actually compete with them. Though what the hell that means, I don’t know. I mean, compete? Run a race? If two people work and have money and live a life of equality, how exactly is that competition? I’m confused.

Apparently, women won’t let men do what their DNA tells them to do. That includes raping women, by the way, which I’ve read articles saying that it’s in men’s DNA and they can’t really control the need. Yeah. Biology is destiny. Right. Bullshit.

Venker’s answer to this horrible problem:

Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

Really? Okay, so there’s so much wrong with this article I can’t hardly begin to say it. The fact is, no man I know would be willing to be classified as on her side. It postulates men as weak and completely dominated by some essential nature that can’t compete with their brains, ambition, emotions, and so on. Basically men in this scene are children who can’t achieve what they want because of a bunch of evil educated working women. Underneath all this is a implied belief in the good old days when men where men and women were safely perched on pedestals where they could be screwed and have babies and their mouths duct taped as needed. They didn’t move, didn’t impinge on a man’s life except as required by her nature (babies and sex, and the labor of keeping house and feeding the man and stroking his ego). Newsflash: those good old days never existed. Women weren’t happy in that scenario. They were frequently, dare I say it, pissed? Like supposedly men are now? But it’s better that they be pissed and this subculture of men be appeased? Stupid.

In the end, treating other people with generosity, tolerance, friendship, kindness, and equality, is the key to good relationships between anyone. This article seems to suggest that someone must be subjugated in order for someone else to be happy. It’s flat out wrong.


  • Douglas Meeks

    I would not suggest that this person is right by any means, but as someone who spends much of everyday communicating with readers and authors, the phenomenal success of such a (IMHO) poorly written piece of trash as 50 Ways makes me think there is some grain of truth buried there someplace. Many review sites have whole sections devoted to BDSM which is almost 100% female written for a female audience. I have to say that the logic there eludes me but more importantly it makes me question if there are really a large amount of women out there that like the idea of being submissive???? Anytime I talk about those books and the success of the BDSM culture recently it just boggles my mind.

    • Di Francis

      It’s an interesting question. I’m wondering if it has to do with the fantasy of not having to be in charge–for those women who shoulder so much responsibility. I’ve seen news stories on CEO-type men who hire dominatrixes because they need to feel not in control, not responsible. I wonder is if that sort of thing translates. As Chris points out into the next comment, it is likely a fantasy, but the question is, what about that fantasy do women find fulfilling? I haven’t read the book, so I can’t offer specifics.

  • ChrisP

    I’m confused… This article was written by a woman, who apparently has a (gasp!) career. Doesn’t make that her an evil feminist bitch or something? Is the last article she’s going to write before quitting and crawling back up on her pedestal?

    To DM: I can see your point on the BDSM thing, and as a woman I’ll admit to having read and even enjoyed a few of those sort (though not 50 Shades). Yet submissive is probably the last thing I can be described as or want to be. I’m not sure what the attraction is, really, except to say that for most women I’d guess it is the type of thing that is more attractive as a fantasy – sort of like vampires or werewolves.

    • Di Francis

      Chris–I thought the exact same thing about her. Apparently it doesn’t apply to her? I’m curious about the fantasy though. I tend to agree, but I’m not entirely sure what exactly the fantasy is and how this fulfills it. Because I’m not thinking it means women want to be dominated any more than you. See my comment above though and see if you agree.

      • ChrisP

        Yes, I think you’re right, Di. I sort of had the thought half-formed, but couldn’t get the rest of the way. If you are normally an in-charge, responsible person, sometimes it is fun to fantasize about giving up control and letting others worry about making the decisions. Take it one step further and perhaps part of the fantasy is that you would *enjoy* giving up control and find submission to be fulfilling?

        I say this because, as I said previously, I have read a few of these types of stories. Yet, in all reality, if a man were to seriously order me around, my knee-jerk response would be, “Kiss my a**!” Any attempt to “punish” or enforce the issue would ensure that he could never, never turn his back on me.

      • ChrisP

        Oh! Another analogy just occurred to me. Maybe it’s a bit like when you’re paying the bills and the car needs to be fixed, and it sure would be nice to be able to get new windows so the power bill isn’t so high and you look at your kids and think, “Wow! It’s so cool to be their age and not to have to worry about all this crap.”

        Or think your cat has the best life, just moving from the bed, to the couch, to the food dish to the sunbeams.

  • Linaka

    Oh, oh, and I love this one :
    “Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.”

    Yeah, because you know, you need to tie your man with the bonds of marriage to make sure he’ll stay by your side, and that’s totally sane, and the fact that he signed a paper is so much more comforting than the mere thought that he stays because he actually loves you.

    It’s been six years now that I live with my man and we’re not married. We can have sex and he can even LIVE with me, just like that ! I’m constantly worried, I must say, to see that he doesn’t have “responsabilities” toward me. I’d love SO MUCH to be my man’s “responsability”. Like a dog to a man, ya know. Feed it, keep it safe, cuddle it from time to time.
    It’s so anguishing to think he stays with me just because he loves me. Gee.

    (this isn’t against marriage at all, btw. I just love how she implies that my type of relationship isn’t safe.)

%d bloggers like this: