Men: The Culprits of Feminism
As we'll see shortly, feminism probably isn't the best thing to ever happen to women, but don't blame women for feminism. Blame men.
That's right men, it's your fault. This is a list from my (pre) marriage counseling I dug up. These are the top 5 natural needs of a wife and husband based on surveys and averages. (Italics added by me) Take a look:
WOMEN
1. affection (non sexual)
2. conversation
3. honesty and openness
4. financial
5. commitment to family
MEN (these are pretty obvious)
1. sexual fulfillment (duh)
2. recreational companionship
3. attractive spouse
4. domestic support
5. admiration of wife
By pursuing self gratification and their own #1 need, men have FAILED to meet the #1 need of women.
Shortly after marriage, men who were once "great listeners" have stopped paying attention to their "nagging wife" and FAILED to meet the #2 need.
Through a misguided understanding of the leadership role, men lose respect for women and have FAILED to meet the need of #3.
Often by laziness in work, an incompetence in handling finances, (debt) and other times a selfish suppression of a wife's natural material desires (shopping) men have FAILED to meet the #4 need.
By "boys night out" and other forms of ignoring the "nagging wife" such as just "getting out of the house for a while," or even alcoholism, men have FAILED to meet the #5 need.
What do you expect, men? Not only do you wonder why none of your "needs" are met but you wonder why "all them women are so werked up." Do you realize when you shut up and stop thinking about yourself that women suddenly stop being so crabby? If you don't listen to your wife, she'll go somewhere else and complain about you. Then she'll build bitterness and resentment, and you'll be up a creek without a paddle, without a boat, without a compass, and blindfolded to boot.
The problem is the terrible idea that "It's a good thing to keep your woman in line by treating her like she's inferior. Besides, I, the man, am in charge!" This idea has caused every one of the afore mentioned problems.
I don't care what anyone says, in general, it is natural for men to be the leader. But leadership isn't about being served and having "subjects," it is in fact the exact opposite! A good leader will ALWAYS make more sacrifices without ever demanding them from others. A good leader leads by example, not force. Especially in a relationship, a good leader must not only treat the other person as an equal, but it must truly be the case in practice. This is not designed as a religious piece, but it is curious to note that in the Bible, it regularly commands men to "love" their wives. It never commands women to "love" their husbands. (the idea being if you truly treat your wife correctly and unselfishly, her love will naturally follow.)
We were once gentlemen. Today we are neither "gentle" nor hardly "men."
I have learned that women will become what you tell them they are. If you constantly tell your wife she is beautiful, she will believe she is beautiful, etc. For years, men have treated women as inferior and as a result, women think they are inferior. This is hard to accept for women, as well it should be, since it is obviously incorrect.
Thus the rise of feminism, which believes that western culture is based on inequality. Where men have failed, feminism attempts to pick up the slack by changing the very natural order of things. In 30 years, what has feminism done for western culture?
Because husbands failed, women took to the task of self-fulfillment. Men had been doing it for years, now everyone scurries around looking for gratification and fulfillment of him/herself. Divorce rates have skyrocketed. The sexual revolution is in full swing. The result?
1. Boys raised by non-nuclear families are 2-3 times more likely to end up in prison.
2. Girls in single family homes are 2-3 times more likely to have out-of-wedlock kids.
3. Children raised by a single parent are 2 times more likely to drop out of high school.
4. Children raised by a single parent are 2 times more likely to get divorced.
5. Children raised by a single parent are almost 3 times more likely to have emotional and behavior problems.
6. The chances of a daughter being abused is 700% greater with a stepfather than her biological father.
7. More than two-thirds of all divorces are NOT the result of highly conflicted marriages, but rather spouses simply "grow apart."
That's a very shortened list, and there's plenty more where that came from. Of course then there's depression and that's another debate in itself. But on the feminist's watch, depression rates are over 10 times what it once was, doubling in the last 10 years, and women are suffering most. Not a very good resume for feminism.
Before you hammer me with the "glass ceiling" mumbo-jumbo and great female-career-woman success stories and tell me I should be ashamed of myself, keep in mind that at no time do I discourage women in the workforce or other like-minded ideas. The point I am making is that if men gave women the respect they deserve then there would be no need for feminism to shove it down everybody's throats.
Clearly feminism is not the root problem. "Rebellious" women and hippies are not the root problem. Feminism is simply a failed substitute for the position men have relinquished through selfishness, laziness, and a desperately vacant respect for women.
Men, stop complaining about feminism. It's your fault.
Published by Jack Sampson
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. View profile
Review: Laugh and Learn PuppyThe laugh and learn puppy can be purchased from Toys R Us for $19.99.- Fisher-Price Laugh and Learn "My Busy Day Table" ReviewThe best gift I received at my baby shower last year was a very colorful Fisher-Price Laugh and Learn "My Busy Day Table".
- Play Center Review: Fisher-Price Laugh and Learn My Busy Day TableFisher-Price's Laugh and Learn My Busy Day Table, for under $64, is a bi-lingual activity table with interactive features to encourage learning and discovery. It includes lights, sounds, and four play modes, and measu...
- Fisher-Price Laugh and Learn Smart Bounce and Spin Pony - Product ReviewThe Fisher-Price Laugh and Learn Smart Bounce and Spin Pony is a great way to bring the park to your home. Even though my daughter doesn't like the games that come with it, she loves to spin and ride on it.
- Fisher-Price Laugh and Learn Learning Home Play Set - Product ReviewThe Fisher-Price laugh and learn learning home play set is a wonderful two-way toy that teaches babies the essential skills of life. Not only does it educational, but it's fun.
- Game Review: X-Men Legends
- How to Meet Women: Advice from a Female Perspective
- The Washington Post Series Chronicling Stories of Black Men in 2006
- Sexual Dysfunction: Treatment for Men and Women
- Superstars of Dance Fails to Meet Expectations
- Learn to Smile and Laugh
- Childbirth DVD Review: Laugh and Learn About Childbirth
- Paul Amato and Alan Booth. 1997. A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U
- Divorce rates are skyrocketing.
- The 30 year resume of feminism is atrocious
- Men are to blame
18 Comments
Post a CommentI was going to comment at length but Richelle did it for me. I'm with you Richelle - I couldn't believe all of the positive comments! Here's a great big lot of people who DON'T GET IT.
THINK, PEOPLE. THINK!
I don't feel I need the last word, really, but i do want to respond about the idea you brought up of complimenting women and treating them as equals. Being nice is not addressing inequalities. It has its place, but really doesn;t have a lot to do with feminism. I hope I made that point--that as valid as your argument may be, it really isn't an argument about feminism, because feminism is a complex and mass social, historical and political movement, not some necessarily personal or trite response to a husband's or general male rudeness or egocentric behavoir. And yes, my argument is gynocentric, but that is another one of my points--that is what feminism IS--feminine centered. I wasn;t ever promoting the idea that having androcentric views was innatly incorrect. But, when addressing a subject such as feminism, especially if you are taking a sympathetic standpoint, it might be wise to at least investigate the authentic nature of the subject, which, by nature is woman-centered.
*whew* reading that was like trying to catch a bouncy ball in a small room. How about we respectfully agree to disagree? If telling men that they should respect women, compliment them regularly, and treat them as equals is somehow androcentric and ignorant of true feminism, well I cant really win can I? Can we at least agree that your arguments are as equally gynocentric as mine may be "man" centered? If feminism states that all men have to improve is "not to feel threatened" then heck, we must be doing pretty darn good! You give us more credit than I do. Anyway, we could play ping-pong all day but I'll give you last word if you want it. Thanks again for taking the time to read, comment, and then continue to comment. It's appreciated very much.
sexes. These seemingly archaic gender models were in working existence in recent memory, and there are plenty people alive now to recount its history. I hate to see feminism as a whole dismissed. It gets a bad rap, but it is expected, because it is a genuine threat to masculine power paradigms. To answer your question further, about what feminism expects from men, I would say that in addition to educating yourself about what feminism truly is, it would be to just stop feeling so threatened. Feminism isn't about your woman or all women turning lesbian or taking your wonderful job away from you.
(cont) nket of our every day lives. I am no voice for the feminist movement, which is complex and varied. But, I think it is obvious that a role of men within a feminism context could be to actually read feminist literature, and not rely on outdated, popular, bastardized mass media accounts or notions of what is ACTUALLY is. Much of what you think it may be, is not. For example, it is not a reaction to superficial neglect within a marriage, as you propose. That is a trite dismissal of its intention and influence. I would assume you never questioned the ability or right of that pouty "football widow" you describe in your article's to vote. But, this is the mindset that feminism has lent us. Of COURSE she votes, duh, that isn't what you're talking about, but--several decades ago, that probably WOULD have been what we would have been talking about. Actually, we probably would not have been talking at all then, because of the social and political veil that existed between the
Yes, Oliver, I have been married. But that my experience or non-experience with men would somehow validate my viewpoint is evidence of that same androcentricism found thoroughout your article. Feminism is not about male/female relationships, and it is not about marriage. Neither feminism nor women are defined within a contextual relationship with men. I understand that this article IS about that, but you have spoken about feminism as a whole, and applied it to a very small, concise idea. I don't know if it is possible to extract 'modern feminism' (and it is highly arguable and nearly absurd to assert that it began in 1977) as an entity from feminism in general. That a lot of people have fought for a lot of things may not be proof of anything, but when you remove that idea from a dismissive abstraction and begin looking at those real revolutions and struggles, you find the tangible threads of passion, sacrifice, court verdicts, stories recorded, etc., that are woven into the blanke
Well, I had a whole super-intelligent reply thought out but I think I should ask you first, are you or have you ever been married? I judge from your comments you are not, which is 110% o.k. it's just that personally I know my whole perspective on this issue did a 180 after I got married. and as to: "I'm sure you would agree that many millions of rational men and women do not hold your view..." You're right! I do agree. But millions of rational men and women DO share my view, and we cant both be right. I respect both sides. As far as all the "feminists fighting throughout the centuries" well, alot of people have fought for alot of causes. That alone is not evidence of anything. "30-year feminism" we're talking about is strictly modern feminism. obviously it's been around (in different forms) wherever free societies have existed throughout time. Finally, can you tell me what feminism expects from men?
"I have learned that women will become what you tell them they are. If you constantly tell your wife she is beautiful, she will believe she is beautiful, etc."
Your quote above is mystifying, really. Do you REALLY believe that women are empty-headed vessels so in need of being defined, that their very identities are formed by their husbands? This comment is perhaps the most blatant and cliche example of misogony that one could fathom. Do you see the profound lack of respect that is present in this mindset? The assumption that you can form a woman into anything you desire from repition of words, good or bad, is an abomination of pavlovian proportions. It ASSUMES inequality--the shaper/shapee... giver/taker...powerful/powerless. I suppose you did outline that already outright with your assertion about 'leadership.' In response to your rhetorical question about what feminism has got us, I would ask the same with what male leadership has lent us, and how that imbalanced paradigm i
(cont.) -motivations in pursuing equality, and dignity. My point is that the feminist movement as a whole does not seek or need a culprit, a male hero figure to 'come to the rescue', so to speak. That is the whole point. The 'culprit' of feminism is the powerful feminine force, voice and experience of millions of women, not some bad husband who neglects his wife by spending too much time watching football, or neglecting to tell the little lady how pretty she looks. Simply put, it's not about men. And do you really so lack a historical reference that you believe feminism began just 30 years ago?
Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my comment. You article's androcentrisim lies in how you have presented feminism's effects, motivations, and rationale as being somehow 'for' men. And your chosen title assumes feminism is a crime with both offenders, and culprits. And, naming men as the culprits places the instigation of feminist practices upon male shoulders. So--this seems a very androcentric device. For example, I'm sure you would agree that many millions of rational men and women do not hold your view that feminism or its contributions to society are negative. So, to those who have endeavored bravely and dilligently in the struggle, and for the women, especially, who have through centuries fought to maintain and promote their freedom and power for themselves, and their future sisters, and are actually proud of their work, putting the whole of feminism upon those 'culprits' shoulders, essentially seeks to strip feminists of their voluntary, varied, complex, self-prompted m