Fausta's blog

Faustam fortuna adiuvat
The official blog of Fausta's Blog Talk Radio show.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

A hypothesis on why men's lives are more difficult nowadays

As I've mentioned before, I'm not a shrink, and (as I'm sure that regular visitors to this blog have noticed) I'm not a deep thinker. The following post is only my personal observations over an issue that's come up recently. Take it with a grain of salt.

In yesterday's post I said
I've felt for a long time that women have easier lives than men. Being a man in today's world strikes me as a most difficult position
A friend wrote asking for clarification of both points.

The main reason I believe that women have easier lives than men is that I've had an easier life as a woman than my brother has had as a man. I can not, and will not, go into details, so you'll just have to take my word on this. However, I have a hypothesis on why men's lives are more difficult nowadays

There are three main trends why being a man in today's world strikes me as a most difficult position:
1. The Church of Oprah
2. Sex and the City
3. Teen girl media
The Church of Oprah
One of the central tenets of the Church of Oprah is that women are inherently better than men. A corollary of that is that women are more nurturing than men.

This point of view has been erroneously based on the fact that men are not women.

While the women's movement might want to believe that men are hirsute women with different plumbing, they are mistaken. No matter how they cut it, one fact remains
Men are not women, and women are not men.
That doesn't mean they have nothing in common, either. A former Oprah protege has made piles of money - has actually created an industry - out of the premise "men are from Mars and women are from Venus" (if you want to look it up, knock yourself out, I'm not linking to it). Nonsense. Women and men are made of the same clay. Just because men are not women doesn't mean they come from another planet.

Jeff Foxworthy has said "Men are simple creatures. They want a beer, and they want to see something naked" which, if you ask the average Joe, is true. Let's divide Jeff's statement in two parts and see what this means, in Oprahspeak:
a. "they want a beer": men don't like to talk about their feelings. In fact, the more you insist that a man discuss his feelings at length, the more he will resent you. Since the Church of Oprah is based on confessional feelings, this invariably leads to problems among its adherents. Rather than fill six verbal pages of conversation about his feelings, a man will rather sit down, have a beer and enjoy a moment of emotional peace and quiet. That's what Jeff means by "they want a beer".

b. "they want to see something naked": they do because it's in their wiring. As Ron White put it, "once you've seen a naked woman, you want to see them all."
Men and women have been having sex with each other without love for as long as there've been men and women. However, while I have known two severely emotionally damaged women who truly loved men and not desire them, I've never even heard of a man who did not desire the woman he loved. A man may not love a woman he desires, but a man can not not desire a woman he loves. That's just the way it works.
(see also this gentleman's comment)

Let's look at 'women are inherently better than men'. If you believe that, you are WRONG. Virtue and character are inherent on each person, and gonads do not determine either; never have, never will.

Similarly, women are not more nurturing than men. Men don't want to talk about being supportive and loving but they are.

For every manipulative and abusive man, there is an equally manipulative and abusive woman. The form of the manipulation and abuse may vary between the genders, but neither gender has the exclusive on that. Having attended an all-girls' school for eleven years, I'll dare say that women can be much more worse (pardon the grammar) at both manipulation and emotional abuse, and many indeed are.

Additionally, many many women believe that men can't feel as deeply as women, since men generally don't verbalize hurt, grief, and despair (and I'd even say that the more deeply they feel those, the less they can verbalize them). Again, that is incorrect. Gonads do not determine the quality of a soul. Compounding the impression that many women have about men's feelings is the fact that many men can only express the depth of their despair through violent means (and I'm most certainly not justifying the violence, which is wrong no matter what), which in turn becomes more fodder for the daily installment of the Church of Oprah.

So we have a whole industry (network and cable TV, magazine, books, seminars) propagating the idea that women are inherently better than men. That's factor #1.

Sex and the City
Factor #2 is what I call the Sex and the City syndrome: the assumption that the only reason for men's existence is to pleasure women. The 4 women in S&TC certainly spend most of their air time using men (I did a related post a while ago) for that purpose and that purpose only. And in real life, too, there are many such women, probably a lot more now than there were a generation or two ago.

The end result is that many women nowadays won't want to find intimacy. No matter how great a guy is, if he comes across a woman who will not want intimacy - no matter how great the sex - that relationship can not progress beyond that. A man who wants commitment and yearns for a reciprocal relationship will be setting himself up for hurt and disappointment if he thinks he can survive in a relationship with a woman who will not surrender herself to his love, or, equally as damaging, if he can not recognize that she is incapable. That's factor #2.

Teen girl media
Factor #3 I just noticed recently, and is related to factor #2.

The salon where I get my manicure used to carry the usual women's magazines, such as Vogue and Good Housekeeping, but in the past few months they've had a large number of teen girls' magazines, among them Seventeen, and magazines supposedly marketed to young adult women, such as Glamour, Jane and Cosmopolitan. Since I'm well past their demographic and there are no teen girls in my home, I hadn't read any of those for literally decades.

I was in for a huge surprise.

Seventeen gives a lot of sex advice, not just on birth control, but on how. Glamour, Jane, and Cosmo might be marketed to women in their early twenties but I assure you that when I was 12 years old (way before Jane was concieved) I was reading my neighbor's older sisters' Cosmos at their house. In a recent issue of Jane, for instance, there was clear and explicit advise on how to perform oral sex, and how and where to have sex in public. The subject of the articles is not much different from what Gerard Van der Leun was editing back when he worked for Penthouse.

If you believe I exaggerate, read what (according to the NYT article The Taming of the Slur) Atoosa Rubenstein, editor of Seventeen magazine, has to say:
"Today, 'slut,' even 'ho' - girls use it in a fun way, a positive way," said Atoosa Rubenstein, the editor in chief of Seventeen magazine, adding that a phrase such as "you little slut" has become a way for girlfriends to bust each other's chops.
As Betsy Newmark asked,
Does this strike anyone else as really a sick sign of where we are in our society?
The net result, as The Anchoress points out, is that many young men are finding
that intimacy has been defined downward, especially for our young girls, to mean little more than a "hook-up." This is something Buster talks to me about. Children, but especially girls, are being sexualized at ever-earlier ages. The sexual messages begin very young in television commercials and on the clothes-store racks, and most of Buster's generation grew up watching Friends and Sex in the City and thinking that this was what life was: a series of sexual encounters with no emotional attachments, no repercussions, no pain, no loss of oneself.

Sexualized early, many girls are either overly jaded or mistrustful and remote. Buster says a troubling number of girls his age are sexually hyper-active, but unhappy and lonely - they cannot make good, healthy connections with respectable young men, because they don't "get" the guys who open car doors for them and who look for a relationship to be about more than a "hook-up" or perfunctory oral sex. (A romance recently busted up because Buster wanted a real relationship, and the girl, a nice-enough kid, simply did not know what that meant!)
In conclusion, if these three factors don't make men's lives more complicated than they already are, I don't know what would.

I'm opening comments on this post, for the first time in several months.

Postscript: A note to V.:
If you are reading this, here's what I have to say:
Anyone that calls you at work to break up with you not only doesn't deserve you, but is a bad person. Character is everything and that person has proved to be bad.
The pain that you postpone by getting back together will only be a down payment on the pain you'll be feeling years down the line. As your dad said, you're setting yourself up for an encore.

Update Maxed-Out Mama:
by banishing the word "virtue" from our publicly acceptable vocabulary we women have rendered ourselves incapable of recognizing virtue in a man
Read every word.

Related post: My brother and The Anchoress

(technorati tags , , , , , , , )

45 Comments:

At 10:26 AM, Blogger Carol ReMarks said...

BRAVO! First let me say what an outstanding post and I totally agree with everything you have said here, even if I do like to watch Sex and The City..I just don't take it all that serious, the show that is....

Secondly, HOLY COW about the teen magazines and sex topics. I had NO IDEA! I'll be paying more attention these days.

Third, I can't stand Oprah.

And finally, as a stay at home mom I had it VERY EASY. My husband died last year and I've had to fill his shoes the best I can, and YES he had the harder job. All that responsibility on his shoulders to provide for his family, and not just financially but spiritually and emotionally and all that crap. I'm having to provide it all now and let me tell you, it's very scary.

GREAT POST!!!!

 
At 10:31 AM, Blogger SC&A said...

This is an interesting post- no doubt fodder for a lot of thoughts and ideas.

Here is one quick take.

Men and women each, want to b elovd and wanted. The difference is in the sequence.

Men want to be wanted firsdt, then loved.

Women want to be loved first, then wanted.

It is easy to give partners the specific verbal intimacy and 'foreplay' they need and respond to.

When that is understood, 'relating' becomes less of a mystery- and that makes for happier times.

 
At 10:41 AM, Blogger FbL said...

Brilliant analysis of (sadly) much of female society. But it also makes me want to stand up, wave my hand in the air and shout, "Not me! Not me!" :)

 
At 10:57 AM, Blogger Fausta said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11:07 AM, Blogger annika said...

Very well done and thought provoking Fausta! I'm not one who thinks we ought to roll back the clock to the days before birth control, but any objective observer would have to admit that the things you described are a byproduct of sex without responsibility.

 
At 11:20 AM, Blogger Fausta said...

any objective observer would have to admit that the things you described are a byproduct of sex without responsibility.
Indeed they are.
And we, and our teens, are all the worse for it.

 
At 12:12 PM, Blogger Francis W. Porretto said...

Dear Fausta,

Specifically with regard to male-female relations, I feel you are essentially correct: men do have a harder row to hoe.

To your observations, I would add a dynamic angle. The old joke runs that women make "the rules," and men aren't allowed to know what they are until they've broken one. It's actually true. Worse, women have claimed the privilege of altering "the rules," without notice and retroactively, in such a fashion that many men have concluded that they can't possibly meet the demands. The fallout has been a degree of unease between the sexes that occasionally flowers into full blown live-fire combat.

This is not to say that women have an easy time of it. Indeed, women's lives are more difficult than they once were, largely because of propagandization by homosexuals and other women. (Further thoughts here.)

We humans are not doing ourselves any favors in this regard.

Keep up the fine and important work, dear.

All my best,
Fran Porretto

 
At 12:27 PM, Blogger Fausta said...

women have claimed the privilege of altering "the rules," without notice and retroactively, in such a fashion that many men have concluded that they can't possibly meet the demands
That is a huge problem that I didn't want to touch on because the post was long enough as it is.

However, by changing the "rules" retroactively, the message many women give is that they can't be pleased.

Once a person in a relationship is perceived as impossible to please, that's curtains.

 
At 12:32 PM, Blogger SC&A said...

By the way, this post by Shrinkwrapped is a must read!

http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2006/02/the_academy_awa.html

 
At 2:18 PM, Blogger Robert said...

What nonsense. Any man who lets women push him around needs to grow up and act like a man. And that means stop whining.

 
At 2:28 PM, Blogger AFSister said...

You CANNOT be serious....
Men have it harder than women? Oh, please.

And you point to television and magazines for the reason?

You really need to get out more. Oprah is warped on a lot of things, but women AND men recognize this. Not all of her stories focus on relationship issues anymore- esp. since Dr. Phil has his own show.

S&TC girls are fictional characters who do not resemble ANY of the real women I know. Not physically, or ideally. Women get used by men for sex WAY more often than women use men for sex. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.

Magazines sell sex because sex sells. Period. If you don't like it...DON'T BUY IT. Same reason I don't let my kids watch movies like "Fog", or tv shows like "South Park", or even "Spongebob". It's not appropriate, so they don't get to watch them. If you think your teens are going to be celebate just because you asked them to wait, you're asking for trouble. Teens will have sex- oral or otherwise- no matter what you tell them. Doesn't mean I want my boys watching a "how to pleasure your woman" video at the age of 13, but it DOES mean that I'll make sure they understand the proper usage of a condom.

Women have it hard too, and by saying that sex makes it hard for men to get along "normally" in today's society is a cop-out. That's like saying it was ok for a woman (or girl) to be raped simply because she wore a short skirt or low-cut blouse. "She was askin' for it, man, so I GAVE IT TO HER".

What a load of bull.

 
At 2:40 PM, Blogger Fausta said...

Men have it harder than women? Oh, please.
And you point to television and magazines for the reason?

No, I actually started the post by saying "The main reason I believe that women have easier lives than men is that I've had an easier life as a woman than my brother has had as a man. I can not, and will not, go into details, so you'll just have to take my word on this. However, I have a hypothesis on why men's lives are more difficult nowadays".

Magazines sell sex because sex sells. Period. If you don't like it...DON'T BUY IT
I didn't, and I don't.
I browse through while waiting for the nail polish to dry. The magazines are there for any customer to read.

saying that sex makes it hard for men to get along "normally" in today's society
I suggest you re-read my post. Nowhere have I said or implied that.
Your analogy with rape is out of place and uncalled for.

 
At 3:13 PM, Blogger neo-neocon said...

Here's my response.

 
At 3:23 PM, Blogger newton said...

Fausta,

I think that the commenter above is so full of bull herself that she doesn't really deserve a response. But, anyway...

This is why I'm scared with the coming of the Little Fig. How am I going to teach her the meaning of "femeninity" when there's so much out there that, in an attempt to emphasize it, only destroys it?

I don't want my Little Fig to dress or talk as a 'ho. I sure don't want her to go after Cosmo or Seventeen.

What's a new mother to do?

 
At 3:27 PM, Blogger dicentra63 said...

Teens will have sex- oral or otherwise- no matter what you tell them.

Bull. I made it through my teenage years without doing anything of the sort. So did my siblings and most of my friends. I didn't even know what oral sex was until I was well into my adulthood.

We have Bill Clinton and his cigar to thank for this. Our society's ideological circulatory system has been polluted with too much bad information about human sexuality. It affects us all, even when we don't buy the mags.

If your kid doesn't get exposed to it in your home, s/he'll get it at the neighbors' house. Wouldn't it be nice if your neighbor didn't have that crap either?

 
At 4:12 PM, Blogger Fausta said...

It is totally biased towards women during divorce
That's one of the reasons why I've had an easier life than my brother, who is divorced.

 
At 4:17 PM, Blogger AFSister said...

Actually, all three of your points are taken from the media- tv and magazines, and all of them focus on sex.

What I'm getting from your post, which I have read several times now, is this:
1. Men are overly influenced by the entertainment industry when it comes to what is acceptable sexual behavior, and what is not.
2. Women are the new scapegoat for "men behaving badly".
3. The media (print or otherwise) picks up on sex to sell their product. Sometimes it's the male vs. female kind of sex, and sometimes it's the intercourse kind of sex- but it all sells, and they know it.
4. You are all failing to see that we are all (men and women alike) at fault for both women AND men behaving badly.

There is no one to blame here... but the person, or people, involved. Get over it, heal, and move on.

 
At 4:28 PM, Blogger Fausta said...

afsister,
There is no one to blame here... but the person, or people, involved. Get over it, heal, and move on.
Now you're talking!

Unseen,
He managed, now that his children are older, to re-establish a good relationship with them. I hope you have the opportunity to do so, too.

 
At 5:20 PM, Blogger Wild Thing said...

Fausta, this is excellent. Absolutely wonderful and you covered it all. I love your writing oni this it is soooo good.

 
At 6:06 PM, Blogger Fausta said...

SC&A,
I just read the ShrinkWrapped post you linked.
The "cuddle puddle" is appalling and at the same saddening. ShrinkWrapped's observations are spot-on.

 
At 6:20 PM, Blogger MaxedOutMama said...

A terrific post, Fausta.

I think what it comes down to for me is that our culture devalues males, and because of that women are devalued as well.

That old "Do unto others" rule holds hard and fast throughout life. If you denigrate and devalue others it will always come back to you.

 
At 7:44 PM, Blogger Dad said...

If you want to know who has it harder, either talk to a single dating male...or figure out why he's single. I suggest you follow his lead to contemporary family law, the single greatest, institutionalized, official travesty of gender equality probably in American history.

Click the link. There's a thousand just like it.

 
At 8:27 PM, Blogger Noton Yalife said...

I think fuasta's point is something along the Biblical Proverb:

For who can find a virtuous wife? She is worth far more than rubies. The heart of her husband safely trusts her and he lacks nothing of value. Proverbs 31:10-11

It's the same as the addage "Behind every great man is a great woman."

There seem to be a shortage of virtuous women, and consequently there is a lack of men with anything of value. There are many fewer great men.

Women have tremendous power whether they realize it or not. A woman has the power to absolutely destroy a man, to drive him to the depth of suicide, and never raise her voice much less her fist.

Ladies, you make us who we are. With you by our side we can do anything, overcome any obstacle, and do so with confidence that even if we fail, we'll kicks its ass tomorrow.
With you needling us in our backs we couldn't cross the street without fear and doubt that perhaps it's better just to stay over here.

For who can find a virtuous wife? I'm very fortunate, indeed.

 
At 12:30 AM, Blogger Carol said...

I've mulled over this post for awhile, and I'm still not sure whether or not I agree completely. I think men have it easier in some ways, but not in others. They definitely have it worse in the area of divorce and child custody - unless their ex's are idiots like I was.

Beth wrote that "The thing is, kids need to be better protected by society - churches, school, families and tv and movies and magazines that are aimed for young women." That really troubles me because with all the crap going on in today's society, our kids are not being protected the way they should be.

 
At 7:36 AM, Blogger wennejunk said...

I concur with Masked Menace, but in a different way.

Everybody is responsible for who they become; Women do not make the men, nor Men the women.

However, if you zoom up to 50,000 feet and look back in history, there is a common thread: Men make war and men make peace, men conquer wilderness and men build bridges. They do it for many reasons, one of which is very often the approval (or perceived approval) of women.

I don't have time to expound, so call me full of BS if you will. However, at least try and catch my point before you nit it to death with your Madame Curie stories of accomplishment by women - that's not what I'm trying to say.

At the 50,000 foot level, men are the engine of society and women are the driver of that engine. Men can choose to go it alone or disregard the women in their lives and many do.

This is that frustrating (to women) example of the unresponsive man.

However, when men want to get closer to women and gain their approval, women set the standards of behavior and men comply.

If you want a man who will honor you, love you, desire you, support you and raise kids with you, then set that expectation. Do not settle for less (but allow for imperfection and room to grow). Do not sleep with the guy or other serious levels of sexual intimacy (oral, cigar, etc) until you get there. Once the intimacy occurs, he has met your expectations and further progress is unlikely.

Finally, (and here's the big one) be worthy of that kind of commitment yourself in behavior, habits, discipline.

The reverse is true for men in all I've said above, but to a lesser extent. Ultimately, women drive the train - and they should. They have more to lose.

The solution: Men and Women need to both set higher standards for the other side and then build their own character to match that they demand of their prospective mate. Teach your kids the same thing and turn off the brain destroyer in the TV room. I'm serious.

I apologize for the haphazard comments and sloppy writing, normally I'm more clear (see my blog for examples). I may not have carried my point.

Best to all and thanks to Neo-Neocon for the link

Tom

 
At 8:36 AM, Blogger Joe said...

This is why I ask any woman who refers to herself parentheically as "godess" (t-shirt, tasteless bling, etc.), if the believe in God, or can make a bush busrt out in flames.

Same for "diva". I ask them to sing. It takes a lot of the tension created by self-absorption away, just like when one refuses when a woman one barely knows asks you to help move her furniture.

It's therapeutic for them, and a real pleasure for me.

 
At 10:37 AM, Blogger Fausta said...

Joe,
Which is why I'm embracing my suburban matronness!

 
At 11:08 AM, Blogger Porphyrogenitus said...

AFSistah, while pooh-poohing Fausta's post, ends up epitomizing it by claiming that the behavior Fausta describes women as engaging in constitute "just another reason for me behaving badly".

THat is, in this view, all blame *really* belongs to the male of the species, and the attitude is "men, get over it and move on, women, you go girrrl!!!"

So, rather than refuting Fausta's point, AFSistah ended up being an example of it. Oh, the irony!

 
At 11:12 AM, Blogger Ronnie Schreiber said...

The area of family law is the one area where the organized "woman's movement" in the form of NOW and like organizations has fought to maintain the status quo. That is because family law benefits women.

Divorce is the only case where a business partner can arbitrarily end the partnership, sieze most of the assets, and force the former partner into indentured servitude - all with the backing of the state.

What other collection agency has the power to put you in jail? What other collection agency has the power to tell you that you cannot be self-employed (because they can't sieze a paycheck) and must work for someone else? What other collection agency can take half your income before you see it, and then still jail you because 50% isn't enough?

I bet you believed it when they taught you in high school civics that America has no debtors' prisons or indentured servitude.

And the states get $0.66 Federal matching funds for every dollar of support they collect. That guarantees that the state agencies will do whatever they can to collect that support, regardless of fairness or practicality.

All of the enforcement procedures for child support and alimony are automatic - loss of professional licenses, siezure of assets, and jail. Visitation and custody issues, however, almost always have to be litigated at considerable expense to the father.

I'd like to see one simple change in the law to make it truly gender neutral, not the wink wink nudge nudge neutrality that exists today. All procedures used to collect support should be equally automatic when it comes to visitation and custody. If a man can support a child from jail, a woman can be a custodial parent from jail.

It's also interesting that the woman's movement has framed the abortion issue as one of "reproductive choice", because men have never had any reproductive choice other than kipping it zipped up. Calling it reproductive choice essentially means that men have no say in the matter at all. A woman can decide to either abort a man's offspring (if he wants it) or force him to support it (if he doesn't). If a man wants children, he has to find a woman willing to not only have sex with him, but also willing to go to term with pregnancies and willing to be a partner in raising those children. And men know, consciously or subconsciously, that she can always change her mind and kick you to the curb.

Of course, men are not allowed to speak of any of this publicly. If they dare to question any female behavior they are called little boys, whiners, losers, or misogynists. Simply using the word misandrist in the presence of women will provoke character assasination.

Even women who try to be fair on this subject get hammered by their "sisters". The sisterhood is powerful. Look at AF's remarks here.

What big stick? I'm not holding any stick behind my back you chauvinist wife beater you!

But then language usage is not gender neutral. She can call you a dick. She can call you a prick. She can accuse you of testosterone poisoning (but don't dare ever mention a woman's hormonal swings except sympathetically). She can say that you are thinking with your "little head".

All the while, the word that men must never dare utter the dreaded, the "C" word, the most radioactive word in the English language must never pass the lips of someone with a Y chromosome - even in sex chat rooms.

Dennis Prager has said that we live in a time where what men and boys do naturally is considered unfortunate at best.

Men get blamed for all the ills of society, while it is women who actually shape society by giving small children their values. If a society "oppresses" women, that's because women raise children to do so. Remember, it's not the fathers and uncles in the Arab and Muslim world that are cutting off clitorises, it's the moms and aunts.

Prostate cancer affects more men that breast cancer affects women, and the treatments often literally neuter men. Yet breast cancer gets way more funding and women get support for "disfiguring" surgery that affects their self image. Somehow I think not being able to function biologically is a bit more damaging to one's self image than the removal of a breast, whose primary function is nurturing infants, not sex.

Beer and HEMIs get sold by making fun of men. When was the last time you saw a commercial mocking women? But it's Madison Avenue's stock in trade to have a doofus man put right by an all knowing woman. Actually, a couple of years ago, Budweiser ran a Super Bowl ad that involved a woman acting like a haridan, screaming at her husband, a NFL referee in "real life". A professor at EMU complained about how it portrayed women negatively. Meanwhile, Dodge shows us an idiot who catches himself on fire while bbqing and gets lost rather than use the dashboard navigation system - which most likely had a few men working on its development. Right, men never ask for directions. Those global positioning satellites got up there all by themselves.

I have two daughters and a son, all mostly grown. The left wing controlls the media and popular culture, so even when men are doing heroic things, as with our miltary, stories about men acting nobly are not to be found. I worry that my son and his peers get nothing but negativity from the culture about their being men.

 
At 11:31 AM, Blogger David said...

Thank Blog there's at least one woman out here with the ability to explain men in a way women can understand.

I was there when this all started, Fausta, back when the gals were tearing off their clothes and burning the Playtex. Oh Lord, and we men never saw what was coming - it was the year of the last virgin.

Yet, my intuitiveness says it all eventually turned out pretty well. Even Oprah, except for her pathologically abusive Dr. Phil.

PS. While food-shopping yesterday, I saw a stunning young girl in the dairy section - she was dressed [only] in her see-through, bikini underwear, that is, an extraordinarily “Fredricked” facsimile. And wouldn't you know, I forgot the milk, the eggs, the…

 
At 12:08 PM, Blogger Y.H.N. said...

Who has is easier? Read Norah Vincent's Self-Made Man : One Woman's Journey into Manhood and Back. It's about a lesbian woman who lives as a "drag king" for 18 months, living among men as a man. She even tries dating. The following is taken from the instapundit post on the same.
http://instapundit.com/archives/028084.php

====================================
Bisexuals know that hurt gets inflicted by both sexes in equal measure if not always by the same means. But for these women -- who had never dated other women, and thus never been romantically hurt by them -- men as a subspecies, not the particular men with whom they had been involved, were to blame for the wreck of a relationship and the psychic damage it had done to them.

It's hardly surprising, then, that in this atmosphere, as a single man dating women, I often felt attacked, judged, onthe defensive. Whereas with the men I met and befriended as Ned there was a a presumption of innocence -- that is, you're a good guy until you prove otherwise -- with women there was quite often a presumption of guilt: you're a cad like every other guy until you prove otherwise.

"Pass my test and then we'll see if you're worthy of me" was the implicit message coming across the table at me. And this from women who had demonstrably little to offer. "Be lighthearted," they said, though buoyant as lead zeppelins themselves. "Be kind," they insisted in the harshest of tones. "Don't be like the others," they implied, while having virtually condemned me as such before hand.

 
At 12:18 PM, Blogger Donn said...

For a man there is no greater pain than to lose your family which for many men is the prism thru which they see the world.

Wow! I haven't cried over my own divorce for about six years, but the above comment has once again brought tears to my eyes. This "pain" almost drove me to take my own life twice as I was going through my divorce.

 
At 3:19 PM, Blogger Jeff Faria said...

I can't really blame Oprah, who is mainly (1) taking her cues from the popular culture, and (2) speaking to her upwardly-striving (if not necessarily succeeding) female audience. I could fault her somewhat, I guess, for perpetuating the problem. She does have influence on that same pop culture, after all.

Amusing to read some of the shut-up-and-take-it responses from some females here. Dr. Helen ran a similar post that I recall a while ago (she returns to variations on this theme from time to time), and received similar comments. A couple of female bloggers really went off on an anti-male rant, which got some exposure in the left blogosphere.

Legal inequalities for men are about as likely to be rolled back as rent control. Once a majority benefit from a legal system, it's hard to budge it. As far as cultural perceptions are concerned, at least women like Fausta and Dr. Helen are standing up for men. For most men, the support of a good woman makes nearly any burden far more tolerable.

 
At 7:49 PM, Blogger M. Simon said...

As usual you forget the role of demographics in all this.

Girls don't become "sluts" due to bad culture.

It is caused by not enough men.

Demographics

Demographics caused the roaring 20s, and the swinging 60s.

 
At 10:03 AM, Blogger Fausta said...

Simon, thank you for linking to that article. It's a fascinating read.

In India and China, conversely, there's the opposite problem: millions of girls are aborted or killed early in infancy, so there aren't enough women. It'll be interesting to see how that develops.

Girls don't become "sluts" due to bad culture.
I must disagree with you up to a point. Insecure unpopular girls who see that all sorts of sluttish behavior is countenanced by society will try to be in demand and popular by adopting sluttish behavior.

 
At 2:19 AM, Blogger FbL said...

AFSister and I had a discussion about this at my blog when I linked here.

But she's a friend of mine, and I have to come to her defense. While I know some of her disagreement with this is definitely intellectual, a significant portion of her reaction is also colored by personal experiences.

 
At 7:44 AM, Blogger Fausta said...

It is, indeed, Tony!

 
At 4:53 PM, Blogger spacepotatoes said...

I followed the link to this post from Manolo's Shoe Blog, and just wanted to say that I thought it was great. Your breakdown of Jeff Foxworthy's quote is spot-on, I think, and very well put.

I am a fan of Sex and the City and do admit to reading the occasional Cosmo, but I am old enough to know that not everything is meant to be taken seriously. The young girls who read magazines like that (speaking of which, that part about Seventeen shocked me. Back in my day, which was less than 10 years ago, they hadn't gone that far!) or watch shows like SATC don't have the filters of experience and maturity. It's very disappointing that this is the result.

I also wanted to mention that this post reminded me of an article in Maclean's (a Canadian news/current events magazine) a while ago in which the person being interviewed suggested that people like Oprah are responsible for the death of conversation, particularly in terms of the way men and women relate to each other. I think there is more than a little truth to it. If you're interested, the article is here:

http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20060612_128422_128422

 
At 8:41 PM, Blogger Beth said...

I'll be honest, Fausta; I have problems with the premise that men's lives are somehow more difficult.

I agree that popular culture portrays men as dolts, and that's stupid. BUT...that ignores the way women are portrayed, and more importantly, treated. Women are still portrayed and treated as sexual objects, or at best, decoration.

Re: Sex and the City--I guess that depends on where you live. I think that's more a way of life in places like NYC, LA, etc., but there's no epidemic of Carries and Samanthas in flyover country. Out here in 'Murrica, adults aren't as likely to parrot the pop culture icons of the day. Teenagers, yes--teenagers everywhere do that, both male and female (pimps and hos!)

About the "unfair" divorce courts--I think the few men who have been treated unfairly have a much greater voice than those who got their just deserts. You don't hear from men who lost their family and a chunk of change because they decided they'd rather screw around than be a husband and father--and believe me, they're out there. Unseenmale said,
"The court system also makes us think twice,three times or more before we walk down the aisle."

It should make men think twice, three times or more before they give up on their marriages, too, but it all too often DOESN'T. Divorce is too easy, too painless for the ones who don't care to work through difficult times and remain faithful and committed to their spouses.

I know you said you've had it easier than your brother, but I don't think that's any more indicative of society as a whole than my situation is; my life as a woman (professionally, socially, and in marriage and parenting) has been infinitely more "difficult" than my ex's or any of the men I've known (including my father and brothers). I'm not weak, though; unlike the men who want to blame women for their "plight," I accept life for what it is and make the best of it. I think men who blame women for their problems (and vice versa) are pathetic, immature, and weak.

Finally, I think the point about "teen girl media" sort of defies the hypothesis that life is more difficult for males. I think it's made life incredibly difficult for girls, and for their lives as women. If anything, the amoral culture has made girls/women even less valued as human beings and more as sex toys. Who do you think benefits from that? Men, of course. I seriously doubt these hoochie mama teenagers are getting the same thing out of the cheap & easy sex that the "pimp" boys are, if you get my drift. And worse, these girls are still female, meaning they usually have more invested emotionally (or expect more emotionally) than they get in return. That's never a plus.

 
At 1:00 PM, Blogger Fausta said...

Rocket girl, I posted On conversation this morning after reading the article.

If anything, the amoral culture has made girls/women even less valued as human beings and more as sex toys. Who do you think benefits from that? Men, of course.
I don't think either benefits.

 
At 11:50 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

1) You (and others) may find a book by Warren Farrel, "The Myth of Male Power" very interesting. Ferrell was at one point (before becoming an apostate) a president of a local NOW chapter, among other things. I believe it was published in the mid-90s.

2) "Men don't want to talk about being supportive and loving but they are"
Actually, I just LOVE to poke the hole in this one. If "men" are the only ones who don't talk about their feelings, then why is the following scenario such a cliche:
Her: "Hmmmph!"
Him: (nothing, watching TV)
Her: "HMMPH!"
Him (noticing) "Is, um, something wrong?"
Her: "No!"
Him: "Oh, OK" (goes back to watching TV)
Her: "HHHHHMMMPHHH!"
Him: (muting sound, setting down remote) "OK, clearly there's something wrong. What?"
Her: "WELL!! If YOU don't KNOW, Why Should I Tell You!?!?"

Right -- BOTH sides have weaknesses in this arena. Men don't talk as much about "feelings" because we don't obsess over them to the same degree women do.

3) "Additionally, many many women believe that men can't feel as deeply as women"
Right again. Actually, I think men feel MORE deeply than women -- when a man falls in love, he does it like a ton of bricks. It's why men can get really, really idiotic about love -- There are probably more John Hinkleys than there are 'Alex Forrest's. So we hold back, and keep a tight rein on it. Women, on the other hand, I suspect (from observation, I grant) seem to strongly follow Lord Byron:
"In her first passion, woman loves her lover. In all others, all she loves is love."

 
At 11:59 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> However, by changing the "rules" retroactively, the message many women give is that they can't be pleased.

Many can't, Madame. This, I might suggest, allows them to remain distant (i.e., not risk being hurt) without taking the blame for it. Actually, if you look at many of these behaviors, they all act in one way or another to resist any form of actual committment, which saves one from the risks involved.

In its most extreme form, this is referred to (I believe, acking that I am not a professional) as being "histrionic". In the old days, the name they had for it was "nymphomania" -- because women used these traits to drive men away before they could get hurt. It actually had little to do with the sex, despite appearances.

 
At 12:06 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> Women are still portrayed and treated as sexual objects, or at best, decoration.

Where as men are NEVER portrayed as anything other than "power objects", or, at best, "ATM machines"...?

Sorry, Beth, Warren Farrell pointed this out years ago:

"Today, when the successful single woman meets the successful single man, they appear to be equals. But should they marry and contemplate having children, she almost invariably considers three career options:
1) work full time
2) mother full time
3) some combination of 1 and 2
He, too, considers three options:
1) work full time
2) work full time
3) work full time
Enter the era of the multi-option woman and the no-option man."
- Warren Farrell -

and

"Sexism, we have been told, made men powerful and women powerless. The reality is somewhat different. For centuries, neither sex had power. Both sexes had roles: She raised the children, He raised the crops/money. Neither sex had options, both sexes had obligations. If both sexes had traditional obligations, it is more accurate to call it sex roles than sexism.
Men's roles didn't serve their interests any more than women's roles served women's interests. Instead, both roles served the interests of survival."
- Warren Farrell -

and:

"[Feminism has] focused on the fact that women as a group earned less --
without focusing on any of the reasons why women earned less, [such as:] full-time working men work an average of 9 hours per week more than full-time working women; men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations, to work the less desirable hours, and to work the more hazardous jobs."
- Warren Farrell -

and

"[The question men need to ask, is:] 'Is earning money that someone else
spends really power?'"
- Warren Farrell -

;-)

 
At 3:21 PM, Blogger Tonia said...

I appreciate your point of view.

I hear an interesting story behind this post about your brother. Are you willing to write about him on http://womenonmen.blogspot.com. first-person, real-time?

Best,
Tonia McConnell

 
At 7:28 PM, Blogger Dick Masterson said...

Very well said.

-Dick
MenAreBetterThanWomen.com

 

Post a Comment

<< Home