Michael Maiello's picture

    BREAKING: NYT Reveals The Problem With Feminists

    "This means that the feminist prescription doesn’t supply what men
    slipping down into the darkness of misogyny most immediately need: not
    lectures on how they need to respect women as sexual beings, but reasons,
    despite their lack of sexual experience, to first respect themselves as men."
    Just want to start your Sunday morning with some clear thinking.  The problem with feminism is that it doesn't give potentially psychotic men what they need.  
     
    You can't spell feminists without "men."
     
    Get with it, girls.
    Topics: 

    Comments

    Yeah I get it, as per the usual.  I don't ordinarily read the people who write editorials for the NYT, so thanks for that, I guess, but now I want to kick Douthat's editor in the head.

    He wrote:

    I have to be fair, because I’m writing one — in this particular tragedy, the killer’s motives really do seem to have a larger cultural significance.

    If Douthat were an honest man, and of course he is not, he would recognize the real significance of what happened with this young man, which is this, no matter how much money his parents had access too, they were unable to help their very mentally ill son. That is a direct reflection on our society no doubt about it, but has absolutely nothing to do with feminism. As a matter of fact he even admits that the kid was mentally ill, why go further than that? Oh because he has to find a way to bring the culture war into his piece and to blame feminism and he does it because conservatives will believe him for sure! But the real gist of his story is he is basically saying if people were forced to get married to have sex this wouldn't have happened, which is, well quite insane actually, but typical of a conservative guy who is looking for the easy answer to explain the actions of a mentally ill man. Complexity is their enemy, simplicity is better for sound bites.


    Douthat is quite the contortionist.  Kid was mentally ill because feminists didn't take the time to teach him about manhood...

    For my part, feminists also failed to teach me jiu jitsu.  What is it with you people?  So selfish.


    The thing about folks like Douthat is that they are able to take some little kernal of truth or insight and build something completely off-base from it.

    First I would say that a lot of times, when people want to speak about feminism and its impact, they talk about feminists, so instead of dealing with an approach to viewing the world, the reader instead imagines individuals, in this case usually women (although men can be feminists), and if one starts with a negative view on such folk, there is an instant bias. 

    Second, the term feminism has been linked to the overall changes that women have achieved since the sixties and seventies, in the workplace, in the home, in the media, and so on.  The reason a show like Mad Men was so popular (amongst women as well as men), in my opinion, is that there are many in this country, men and women, who preferred the more simpler times - simple in that the roles were more clear, there was less ambiguity - at home, in the workplace, in social settings.  Feminism is the all-catch term to represent the reason why the world of gender roles and behavior has become more complex and difficult for some. 

    And third, there is more ambiguity for males in the 21st century than there was during the days of Mad Men.  We don't have the rituals, or the homogenous cultural "wisdom" to move us through the stages of life.  Adolescent males have usually their fellow adolescent males, cable tv, the internet, and their X-boxes to show them what it is to be a man.  Toss in mental illness on the scale that Rodger obviously had and it is a recipe for disaster - an illness that fixated on women as the problem.  But we had Jack the Rippers long before there was any of this ambiguity.  

    It isn't a feminist's responsibility to move a male through the stages of childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.  It is all of our responsibility.  One that we fail at miserably in my opinion.  But Rodgers and his actions is not a case study in what is wrong with this culture when it comes to helping boys become men. 

     


    ...but typical of a conservative guy who is looking for the easy answer to explain the actions of a mentally ill man. Complexity is their enemy, simplicity is better for sound bites.

    I would say that "complexity" is also the enemy of the liberal guy or gal as well, the only difference being in the answer that is derived because the basic beginning assumptions and paradigms are different.  I am guilty as any one of this problem, it is part of human nature (whatever that is). 

    Having worked in the mental health field, which was at least at the time I was involved, dominated by liberals, even those who use the word proudly when it had become a four letter word in the culture at large, I can say even those who are trying to help the mentally ill are looking for the easy answer.  This has a lot to do with the whole field of psychology and Western science, etc., with the end result being the outcome of most treatments, whether it be for a schizophrenic to the person who has issues with anxiety is to make them more "functional," that is able to perform better in their daily lives, be it at home or at work or in social settings.


    What a bunch of gobbledygook.


    Gee...and the NYT is having trouble making ends meet.  


    Post-modern feminism throws out old gender roles and replaces them with clearly defined goals of women as professionals who are in control of their domestic and professional life. It doesn't really define anything at all for men, just that the old way is done. It also assumes that patriarchy and male social dominance is a fact of life so it really provides little at all for men when we enter a society in which women are more upwardly mobile.

    Feminism's assumption that patriarchy is behind everything naturally translates to assumptions of bad intentions on men by women who follow the ideology. Most men have experienced this while dating - it's a little like white people who make sure their car doors is locked when a black person walks by. I've had employers ask me, before I even said anything in an interview, if I "had a problem working under a woman" and had female acquaintances (they weren't friends after pulling this) assume the very worst intentions based on my gender.

    I long gave up on the whole dating world - relationships usually come around naturally from shared interests and experiences - but when I did, that is when the bad assumptions of feminism were worst. The dating world feels like a police department line up, especially with women who assume the men they are dating are naturally malevolent. I also wonder if that assumption also leads to women staying with genuinely abusive men because they simply don't believe good men exist. Men are naturally going to become a bit resentful when they are treated like "guilty until proven innocent" criminals when they are only looking for work or love, just as women are resentful about being only represented sexually in media or taken advantage of in male dominated fields like auto repair.

    Nevertheless, I think it's very dangerous to have this conversation due to Elliot Rodger. The man was psychotic and psychotic people have all sorts of strange reasons for their behavior. There was another murderer who called himself a "socialist" and God knows what Jared Loughner's politics were. We do need to have an open discussion about gender especially given the momentous changes in our society but we taint the whole argument by affiliating it with a murderer. The core of the conversation with someone like him should be renewing mental institutions and involuntary commitment because that is something that was clearly needed for him, Jared Loughner and Adam Lanza.

     


    It seems there is some percentage of men who are having trouble figuring out their role in modern times. But this isn't the fault of feminism nor is it women's responsibility to fix. Just as it was not men's responsibility to decide for women what their role should be. Women decided what changes they wanted and men had a choice to support or not support their goals. Just as heterosexuals don't get to decide what goals LGBT should pursue. They get to decide what their goals are and we get to choose to support or not.

    Those men who want to redefine or find new roles for themselves in the modern world need to figure out what it is they want, get active, and then look for support from women to achieve those goals.

    "Women as professionals" was only one goal of feminism and it was more about equal access to colleges and professions. Not that every women should seek to become professionals. Most women aren't professionals just as most men aren't professionals. There was only one doctor and one dentist in the small town of 5,000 where I grew up. For every white collar worker at the Bethlehem Steel there were hundreds of blue collar workers like my dad. For every manager at Walmart there are dozens of cashiers, sales people, and stockers. Feminism is and was about equality. Its about equal pay for those working class women. Its about protection from sexual harassment at work. Its about equal access to those limited number of management jobs.

    Its unfortunate that your experience of the dating scene was so often negative. But don't assume that's the norm. The vast majority of the women I interacted with didn't treat me as naturally malevolent. I've had only one experience that might qualify but I didn't label it as being treated as naturally malevolent. I saw that she was fearful. I wasn't resentful, I was sympathetic. Given rape statistics I can fully understand why a women might be fearful alone with a new man. I considered the possibility she might be dealing with a rape or near rape. I can't see being resentful over what I consider women's quite justifiable degree of caution.

    Going to bars and clubs was difficult for me because of my introversion. Not because I felt women treated me as a symbol of patriarchy. Perhaps my experience was atypical since I'm 5'4" and was very thin. Its possible I was seen as less threatening due to my size. Its also possible your experience was atypical too. I'd have to see some raw date before I accept your anecdotal evidence as factual for men in general.


    "But this isn't the fault of feminism nor is it women's responsibility to fix. " I agree with the first part, and only partially with the latter.

    We're in a society together. It's not like women will progress and break old stereotypes & repression without some cooperation and help and change from men. Sure, they can do some things on their own, but some requires mutual action - and not everything can be legislated. And even if it could - freedom for one side doesn't have to be simply loss of privilege for the other.

    Worse, if women don't help men define better, more compatible roles, I'm afraid they just won't get to a space where they'd really like to be. I'm sadly unimpressed with the results of 50 years of women's activism since the 60's - maybe I'm just nostalgic, but it seems like there's more objectification of women now, women get to do all the household tasks *AND* hold a 9-5+ job, and we still keep the image of bitch boss from hell every time there's an issue with female executives or female politicians.

    So maybe we have to more consciously create a mutually compatible future, or maybe I'm just confused.


    Interesting.

    I never really liked dating, though I did like meeting new people.

    Never thought that my dislike of dating had anything to do with "feminism," but I do admit that a charming, beautiful "traditional" woman had charms that were very seductive.

    Even when bits of "the tradition" showed through, it was nice. Maybe because they hinted at a "pathway" instead of forcing you to make up everything on the spot as we went along.

    In fact, I once had a dream in which my "ideal woman" appeared. When I woke up, I knew I had seen her in the dream. She was a country and western gal, a music which I pretty much hate.

    All that said, all of my lasting relationships were with "liberated" women, including my wife.


    I don't know what in the hell Douthat is trying to say.  All I know is I'm not taking even a mili-inch of blame for what those man-boys think about women and sexuality.  And no other woman should do it, either.

    They've built their own fantasy world around women, and subservience is their wet dream.  If we were all boobs and vaginas their happiness might be complete, but, as we keep trying to tell everybody, they are not the sum total of our parts.

    There are some sick bastards out there and because they're basically cowards they buy into the myth that women are the weaker sex and thus should be ripe for abuse.  Douthat is right that men have to learn to respect themselves, but again it shouldn't be women who have to pay the price when they don't.

    He'a right, too, that there is more emphasis today on sex than on intimacy or relationships--in life, in the movies, in music.  It's hard for young people to sort those things out in the midst of a society that seems so hyper-sexual.  So should women hide their sexuality and stay virginal until marriage because men can't control their own feelings?  Or should men get over themselves and learn to control their baser instincts? 

    I would think after centuries of murderous misogyny there would be enough men who would be getting tired of making excuses for it and would finally do something about it.

    Douthat shows his cards when he calls Jessica Valenti's article on how misogyny kills  "a splendid little culture war".    Tell that to the woman who was just stoned to death by males in her own family for marrying someone they didn't approve of.  Or the woman waiting in prison to be lashed to death for loving someone outside her country's religion.

    Maybe I'm just tired and it'll make sense in the morning, but--not that it matters--I've read his last sentence over and over again and I don't get it:

    But they might drain some of the swamps that are forming, slowly, because our society has lost sight of a basic human truth: A culture that too tightly binds sex and self-respect is likely, in the long run, to end up with less and less of both.


    I don't think Douthat knows half the time what he is writing about. I just don't think he is worth the time to read.  


    I'm guessing the answer to the question of whether it's easier or more difficult (heheh, I almost said "harder") to grow up in our more hypersexualized culture is going to be of "your mileage may vary."

    Some young people, of both genders, are going to have a hard time controlling their feelings and desires.  Others are going to find themselves better suited to more outward displays of hedonism. Some people benefit from a certain amount of decorum while others find it oppressive.

    It would probably shock Ross to find out that some women also like sex... 


    Nothing new about liking sex.  Or having sex before you're ready.  We were getting married right out of high school, not because we wanted to be married so much as we wanted to have sex and it was drilled into our heads that you couldn't have it without a license.

    Messages about sexuality have always been mixed, mainly, I think, because nobody really knows what to do when sex organs mature before the brain does.  Hypersexuality reigned during the Flapper era, too, and then it calmed down again to an almost prudish state before it flared up again during the Hippie era.  Then it calmed down a bit and now you would think it's all anybody ever thinks about.  There's big money in sex.  It pays to keep the myth alive that you're nothing and nobody without an active sex life.  I mean, come on. . .Viagra?


    The Amish may know what to do to some degree: bundling.

    http://www.exploring-amish-country.com/amish-dating.html


    Sonja: Oh don't, Boris, please. Sex without love is an empty experience.

    Boris: Yes, but as empty experiences go, it's one of the best.


    Regarding that last sentence, what he is saying is that our culture has bounded sex, that is the amount of sex one is getting, to the amount of self-respect one has for one's self.  That is, if I can't get any action, I must a worthless piece of garbage. 

    He then goes on to assert that in the long run, this binding of the two will generate a society where more and more people will get less sex and have less self-respect. 

    Which is a weird bit of logic.  But again, there is some basic kernel of truth in what he is talking about.  Decades ago, I knew by the time I was in the 9th grade, as a male, if one was a virgin, one definitely did not let this fact become known.  It was probably one of the worst things one could be.  I think, and this was around 1980, not the same for the girls.  But it wasn't necessarily something one proclaimed out loud for them either, at least not in the party crowd I hung out with.  The girls had the problem of being considered too easy, which the boys didn't.

    Today, with the likes of Miley Cyrus leading the cultural vanguard for the youth, both sexes, regardless of orientation, tie one's sexual action (or one's ability to get some action should one choose) as a key if not the primary indicator of one's worth and place in society.  This is as true for adults.  When I watch cable television, I find myself feeling like some old prude, appalled at not only the shows hypersexuality, but the commercials in-between the shows, which make sex and sex appeal as the most important thing one can possess or achieve in life.

    The point being - regardless of one's age or orientation or whatever, the greater the ability to get some action is seen as some key indicator of the person's standing within the pack. This has become a kind of accepted conventional wisdom.  The difference was even in my days as a youth, tv sensors as well as the male dominated media industry shielded me to a great degree from facing this reality.  I could watch tv and not feel like a crappy little virgin.  Today, unless one just keeps the weather channel on, this isn't the case. 


    The column makes no sense. Why bring up feminists? Is there any evidence that there were close male friends? Are the males who frequent misogynistic websites to blame for the deaths? They supported the killers' point of view on women. Or should we just acknowledge that this was a case of a severe mental illness and leave it at that?


    Latest Comments