Misconceptions about men

[Speluncher]

I think that we should encourage each person to just be themselves.

 

[MERCY@GRACE]

OK so this is like a massive generalisation, but true anyway. Most (but not all) women who believe in equality are not averse to resorting to the Damsel in distress mode when the circumstances suit them. Well, I'll let you into a secret girls....


We do it too!!!! Only much better...


I can walk into a supermarket, adopt my helpless man stance and look, whilst pretending to search for some fiendishly well hidden product, and within a few minutes have two or three willing female shop workers scampering round finding things for me.

At home, if you do something badly enough (hoovering etc) you don't get asked again, and the complexities of the iron and the washing machine are way beyond a mans capabilities.


Well, that's men for you

LOL-it took me a while to realize my dh was playin me.... "umm dear where is the pot to boil the eggs again"

 

[bliz]

Well, to be real brief --

He is a heterosexual male who came to believe, based on Christian teaching, that his natural attractions to women were evil because they are "lusts of the flesh" and "lusts of the eyes." His counselor says that he never went through the enormous, complicated, and rewarding task facing very adolescent boy -- to "come into his own" as a sexual man. There were just too many Bible verses, and Christian books (like Every Young Man's Battle), etc. teaching him that he ought to fear and hate adult masculinity which includes physical sexual attraction.

So many repressed desires and frustrated attractions just made him very conflicted and frightened of himself and the way God made him. I don't quite understand it all, but I have asked him about it quite a bit, and this is what he describes.

Now, I don't chalk this up to feminism, but rather to well-meaning but naive and legalistic Christianity.

But, there were aspects of feminism which also hurt him -- he has always been very sensitive about not offending women and about being accepted by them. He tends to obsess about the modern feminist rules about "sexual harassment" which guage a man's conduct by any woman that might disapprove of what he's done.

Finally, he attended a college where there were a lot of posters and public awareness campaigns warning women of rapists -- and casting suspicion on any person who God gave a penis.

Now you can laugh at him, and he is probably as ridiculous as you think he is -- timid men are, indeed, quite pathetic -- but I cry with him because I love him.

I am not laughing at him, or any man with similiar problems. I am disagreeing with you on where to place the blame.

How can you possibly blame feminisim for some Christians presenting him with a "all sex and sexual desires are evil" perspective? There's a lot of blame to go around, but feminists don't deserve that piece of the blame. I'd have to look at the parenting he received in the home and the teachings he received from church or CHristians who have a distorted notion of sex. If by college age he felt guilty for having a penis and sexual interests, that comes from damage done long before he matriculated.

I hope your brother is getting the counseling he needs to reclaim his life, but liberated women did not take it away from him.

 

[murron]

I have to say that I agree; feminism has done a lot of damage to the male psyche, traditional family and gender comfortability. I also have to say that the original pretext of feminism had a purpose - and I have to admit, I do take an active role in politics and believe very sincerely in my civic duty to be informed about political matters and vote accordingly. Had feminism stopped at that point, I would not be anti-feminist.

Men live in a world where one woman expects one thing and to another woman it is insulting - such as opening a door for a lady. To some, this is chivalry in action, to others it is sexism in action. Some women beat a man down for being "manly" (you know, the protector, provider and leader) while other women still seek such responsibility from a man. There are no longer clearly defined roles for men and women - it's no wonder we have a term as lovely (not) as "gender confusion".

This is an issue I researched a while back. I compared statistics available from the Department of Justice website and vital statistics. That information was cross-referenced with the advent (and progression) of "women's lib", primarily in the 60's through 90's. Divorce rates shot up, teen pregnancy (followed by the legalization of abortion) shot up, juvenile crime shot up disproportionaly to population increase, latch-key syndrome set in. That says nothing of the more recent 'gay movement' which can feasibly be tied into the blurring of gender roles as well as the "banner of equality". The affects crossed all socio-economic barriers so those results can't be pinned on some specific region or social class, which leaves us having to look at some other commonality - and pretty much the only "event" that reached across all those barriers was women's lib.

I'm not saying it is all bad, but the fact does remain that a very serious trade-off was made and I'm not sure the true cost is worth what we got in return.

To a degree, even inflation beyond standard increase of living expense can be attributed to this movement. After WWII, women did not eagerly return home, many stayed in the work force. That increase in income allowed them to buy more things. Throw in the "keeping up with the Jones's" mentality, and suddenly two incomes were required in order to have the finer things in life. This enabled companies to increase cost as production increased and more money flowed into the pockets of consumers. Now we live in a world where two incomes are just almost required to "get by". And, we live in a society (here in the States) where SAHM are basically penalized for not holding down a job. We have no access to insurance other than through hubby's work, we have no compensation for the time and effort we choose to invest in our children, and in a majority of situations, SAHM are viewed with disdain, a throwback to an era long past and a time 'best forgotten'. You know, every time I write a check and the clerk asks for a work number...I get this look of "wow, how lazy are you" when I say I'm a stay at home mom. It's to the point where I simply say I work from my home.

Bottom line: yes, some things needed to change, but the pendulem was pushed too far, and the ones who pay the greatest price are our future generations raised by a key to the front door, and a culture that ignores and seeks to change the foundation of roles God gave us.

 

[bliz]

Men live in a world where one woman expects one thing and to another woman it is insulting - such as opening a door for a lady. To some, this is chivalry in action, to others it is sexism in action. Some women beat a man down for being "manly" (you know, the protector, provider and leader) while other women still seek such responsibility from a man. There are no longer clearly defined roles for men and women - it's no wonder we have a term as lovely (not) as "gender confusion".

Are men too stupid to figure out that all women wil not respond the same way to the opened door - or anything else? Your argument is insulting to men. I think that men are perfectly capable of dealing with the fact that wome are seperate human beings who do not all agree or respond the same way to everything. Are men so easily confused? Again - I think your argument belittles men.

This is an issue I researched a while back. I compared statistics available from the Department of Justice website and vital statistics. That information was cross-referenced with the advent (and progression) of "women's lib", primarily in the 60's through 90's. Divorce rates shot up, teen pregnancy (followed by the legalization of abortion) shot up, juvenile crime shot up disproportionaly to population increase, latch-key syndrome set in. That says nothing of the more recent 'gay movement' which can feasibly be tied into the blurring of gender roles as well as the "banner of equality". The affects crossed all socio-economic barriers so those results can't be pinned on some specific region or social class, which leaves us having to look at some other commonality - and pretty much the only "event" that reached across all those barriers was women's lib.

Please! Correlation does not equal causation. Do you really think that all of these complex problems were all caused by only one thing? There were no other events that touched all of these areas of life - not politics, not TV not music not laws... And how do you blame feminism for the gay movement????? The rights of women and the rights of homosexuals are rather different subjects.

I'm not saying it is all bad, but the fact does remain that a very serious trade-off was made and I'm not sure the true cost is worth what we got in return.

To a degree, even inflation beyond standard increase of living expense can be attributed to this movement. After WWII, women did not eagerly return home, many stayed in the work force. That increase in income allowed them to buy more things. Throw in the "keeping up with the Jones's" mentality, and suddenly two incomes were required in order to have the finer things in life. This enabled companies to increase cost as production increased and more money flowed into the pockets of consumers. Now we live in a world where two incomes are just almost required to "get by". And, we live in a society (here in the States) where SAHM are basically penalized for not holding down a job. We have no access to insurance other than through hubby's work, we have no compensation for the time and effort we choose to invest in our children, and in a majority of situations, SAHM are viewed with disdain, a throwback to an era long past and a time 'best forgotten'. You know, every time I write a check and the clerk asks for a work number...I get this look of "wow, how lazy are you" when I say I'm a stay at home mom. It's to the point where I simply say I work from my home.

And if all women stopped working, prices would suddenly go down? I don't think so. Are you reading these nonsencical arguments somewhere? Is some group pushing this stuff?

I don't know anyone who views SAHM as lazy - I think most people view them as fortunate. And even is everyone does, so what? Are our feelings so easily hurt? Are you embarassed by your choice? You not only want the right to choose to do what you want to do with your life (something I agree with compleatly) but you want society to applaud your choice. Sorry - that you cannot be guaranteed, no one can.

Bottom line: yes, some things needed to change, but the pendulem was pushed too far, and the ones who pay the greatest price are our future generations raised by a key to the front door, and a culture that ignores and seeks to change the foundation of roles God gave us.

Back to the roles again! - this time, "roles God gave us". If these roles are so very important why won't someone answer me and tell me exactly what these roles are????

 

[bliz]

double post - sorry!

 

[Katydid]

I don't know anyone who views SAHM as lazy - I think most people view them as fortunate.

That is a part of the attitude that makes us feel the way we do. I am not fortunate, I didn't just say "oh I think I'll stop working honey, no problem". My husband and I lived off of very little ($250 for food, gas, toiletries etc.) a MONTH!! For almost 2 years before we got back on our feet from my quitting work. It was not handed to me and I was not "fortunate", I EARNED it. I worked hard, my husband worked hard and we did that because we BELIEVE it is the best thing for our children. By the way, I LOVED MY JOB!!! I made a choice to put my children first. Being fortunate had NOTHING to do with it.

Are men too stupid to figure out that all women wil not respond the same way to the opened door - or anything else?

How about a 7 year old boy. My son held the door open for a woman, she told him "I CAN do that by myself", he said, "my father tells me I am supposed to respect ladies", She looked right at him and said "MEN!" Now how is that supposed to help my son understand where he stands?

And if all women stopped working, prices would suddenly go down?

She didn't say that, what she did say is that, this is where it has gotten us. She didn't say that the solution was for all women to quit their jobs.

Sorry, but I feel the effects of a one income family, and it is not easy. The Marriage Penalty on taxes was just for the purpose that most families were two income. Thank goodness that is gone, because my husband was getting penalized for something we aren't.

What many of us are saying is that we appreciate what women DID when feminism began, but it went way too far.

 

[bliz]

Can someone give me an example of how feminism has gone too far? Have individuals taken things too far? Sure, some of them, from every group you care to name. But what laws have been changed that are "too far"? Have women become too equal?

Your 7 year old son encountered a very rude woman. Were there no rude women before the feminist movement? Aren't all of our children going to have to learn to face rude people?

OK - you don't wish to be considered fortunate that you can be an at home Mom. I was able to stay home when my kiddos were young and I consider myself very fortunate. It took going to WIC and watching the budget very carefully to make that happen, but at least my husband made enough money that with scrimping and trimming we were able to do it. I had many friends whose husbands simply did not earn enough money to make that happen - or hubby earned enough money but with no health benefits so the wife had to work enough hours to get health benifits for her children.

Men have been impregnating and abandoning women since, well, since sex began. This is nothing new! That does not make it any more acceptable, but it hardly makes it an outcome of the feminist movement. How do you end up blaming women for men being irresponsible???? Men take the actions and make the decision to walk. Feminism has nothing to do with that.

 

[Yitzchak]

Wow, there is a whole lot to respond to in this thread. Interesting subject.....

First let me say this. I believe that as a man , I should learn what it means to be a man from God and from my earthly father , if I am fortunate enough to have one. Taking the lead from women on what it means to be a man seems ironic to me. I guess if I am unsure of my masculinity , then I could get quite confused by listening to women speculate about what it really means to be a man.

With that said, I think that taking the type of statements like "that's a man for you" personally would be my mistake and insecurities and not the fault of the feminist movement. I perfer to think that when a woman makes such a statement she is not judging all men but rather expressing frustration at certain cultural stereotypes which she sees in the behavior she is criticizing. For example, if men are insensitive and oblivious to a woman's emotions and needs and a woman remarks on that. I don't take that as a criticism of all men. Just that she hates that stereotypical behavior.

As far as blame. I blame a fatherless generation for the problems men are experiencing. Not having a father has effected me much more than women's attitudes , feminist or otherwise. The question was asked , "where has the feminist movement gone too far " ? One place that comes to mind is the abortion issue and the underlying idea that a woman's body is her own and she has no obligation to her husband concerning it. Society has avested interest in the abortion issue and the fetus's father certainly does as well. I find that the ideas which underlie the debate have a lot more applications than just abortion. Living a selfish life with no regard for how it effects others is one of the worst abuses of feminism. The rebellious attitude that no one is going to tell me what to do, including legitimate authorities is another. Of course , the "me" generation is not just seen in feminism. It is just that feminism provides the rationale and emotional motivation for pushing it a little furthur in some cases.

With all of that said, I don't blame the feminist movement for men's struggles with what it means to be a man. I do know this , it is not very manly for me to be overly sensitive about a woman making remarks about her disappointments in men's behaviors. Part of being a man is taking a proactive stance and not allowing my life to be controled by someone else's issues.

 

[Speluncher]

Are men too stupid to figure out that all women wil not respond the same way to the opened door - or anything else? Your argument is insulting to men. I think that men are perfectly capable of dealing with the fact that wome are seperate human beings who do not all agree or respond the same way to everything. Are men so easily confused? Again - I think your argument belittles men.

Men do not have perfect information about what a given woman wants/doesn't want will be happy about/will be offended by. Men have to act with imperfect information and that means they must risk being offensive to some women, if they hope to be pleasing to another.

This is a really difficult thought for men who want to respect and be respected by women -- that they must necessarily offend and be offensive to a certain proportion of female society. It can be quite inhibiting.

Who likes to be shot a dirty look for opening a door for a woman? Who likes to be accused of sexual harassment for looking at a woman? (this happened to a lesbian friend of mine recently) Are you ready to tell me that a certain proportion of women are rude and their feelings of discomfort and hostility are unjustified, that their criticism and concerns should rightly be ignored? Many feminists will make no such concession.

Guys need to develop a thick skin and develop some confidence in who they are and what they do, but some guys are liable to go way to the other end and stop caring what the cacophony of female voices are saying.

 

[InTheFlame]

Men do not have perfect information about what a given woman wants/doesn't want will be happy about/will be offended by. Men have to act with imperfect information and that means they must risk being offensive to some women, if they hope to be pleasing to another.

Ever heard the story of the young man, his father and a donkey? This sort of predicament is as old as time. I think the only solution is to act as Jesus would want - with love and respect to all, getting our thanks and our self-worth from God, not from humans.

This is a really difficult thought for men who want to respect and be respected by women -- that they must necessarily offend and be offensive to a certain proportion of female society. It can be quite inhibiting.

I do find this hard to understand. I'm not slamming you, please be clear on that! But for me, as a woman... it doesn't bother me if I offend men with my actions IF I'm acting in love. I am me, I try to treat others with respect, and I expect the same in return. If I'm not treated with respect, I put that down to a failing of the person not giving respect, rather than my own failings.

Social customs come and go. God's standards for living are eternal. I admit that it's nice to have a concrete standard of ettiquette, to know that this is acceptable, and that is not. But a period of change, confusing though it can be, is not always a bad thing.

Who likes to be shot a dirty look for opening a door for a woman? Who likes to be accused of sexual harassment for looking at a woman? (this happened to a lesbian friend of mine recently) Are you ready to tell me that a certain proportion of women are rude and their feelings of discomfort and hostility are unjustified, that their criticism and concerns should rightly be ignored? Many feminists will make no such concession.

I think any criticisms and concerns should be examined for truth - and taken onboard if found true. And chucked overboard if found to be false! Rude and hostile people are everywhere. Keep in mind, though, that many women have had bad experiences with men that colour their perceptions of what _other_ men are doing. For example, a woman whose ex-husband was highly controlling and abusive AND demanded she wear dresses and skirts, and stubbornly insisted on them following all the old fashions of etiquette (such as him walking on the road side of the footpath, opening her door, etc)... may associate a man opening a door for her, with an attempt to control and denigrate her. I guess what I'm saying is, we need to keep an eye out for the pain in this world... and keep in mind that people who react badly to normal things are probably reacting to a long-ago hurt - they're generally imprisoned in the pain of their past.

Guys need to develop a thick skin and develop some confidence in who they are and what they do, but some guys are liable to go way to the other end and stop caring what the cacophony of female voices are saying.

I think the key is compassion. Realise that a person is probably suffering their own private pain, that it's not actually about the guy or their action at all. And listen to God.

 

[searle29678]

Wow, there is a whole lot to respond to in this thread. Interesting subject.....

First let me say this. I believe that as a man , I should learn what it means to be a man from God and from my earthly father , if I am fortunate enough to have one. Taking the lead from women on what it means to be a man seems ironic to me. I guess if I am unsure of my masculinity , then I could get quite confused by listening to women speculate about what it really means to be a man.

With that said, I think that taking the type of statements like "that's a man for you" personally would be my mistake and insecurities and not the fault of the feminist movement. I perfer to think that when a woman makes such a statement she is not judging all men but rather expressing frustration at certain cultural stereotypes which she sees in the behavior she is criticizing. For example, if men are insensitive and oblivious to a woman's emotions and needs and a woman remarks on that. I don't take that as a criticism of all men. Just that she hates that stereotypical behavior.

As far as blame. I blame a fatherless generation for the problems men are experiencing. Not having a father has effected me much more than women's attitudes , feminist or otherwise. The question was asked , "where has the feminist movement gone too far " ? One place that comes to mind is the abortion issue and the underlying idea that a woman's body is her own and she has no obligation to her husband concerning it. Society has avested interest in the abortion issue and the fetus's father certainly does as well. I find that the ideas which underlie the debate have a lot more applications than just abortion. Living a selfish life with no regard for how it effects others is one of the worst abuses of feminism. The rebellious attitude that no one is going to tell me what to do, including legitimate authorities is another. Of course , the "me" generation is not just seen in feminism. It is just that feminism provides the rationale and emotional motivation for pushing it a little furthur in some cases.

With all of that said, I don't blame the feminist movement for men's struggles with what it means to be a man. I do know this , it is not very manly for me to be overly sensitive about a woman making remarks about her disappointments in men's behaviors. Part of being a man is taking a proactive stance and not allowing my life to be controled by someone else's issues.

You make some good points...I guess I should have said the abuse of feminist ideas rather than the movement itself.

 

[MERCY@GRACE]

I don't think anyone here is saying the feminist movement (the latter mentality, not the former) is "solely" resposible for the mixed messages! But to say it doesn't play a small part in how it's influenced some negative behaviors would be like saying, a woman in a g-string at walmart wouldn't cause a man to stare,and bring lustful thots,or vice versa! It is not the "womans" fault per se for bringing unwanted thots into the mans head, but the woman does play a part in how the man reacts, or again vice versa!

As for scripture for men and womens roles there are plenty(since God designed us for unique purposes) but I'd rather not list them b/c the tone of this post tells me it would turn intop a debate,and I'd rather not debate

 

[Katydid]

Here is a negative. I don't remember the name, but I took a quiz on quotes the other day and a famous feminist's quote was:

A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.


Now at first I was confused until I realized that she is saying that women don't need men. IF I remember right, she was a major feminist (can't remember the name, but it was a familiar one). To me, that is damaging. Telling our young girls that men are accessories to be had or not, is damaging. It makes marriage, family, a choice. Personally, I feel that if a woman is going to have children, then those two things are a necessity, not an option.

 

[Andy Broadley]

To quote a famous American commedienne ' Women need men for two reasons. To kill spiders in the bath, and tell us we don't look fat in stretch lycra'

 

[Speluncher]

Here is a negative. I don't remember the name, but I took a quiz on quotes the other day and a famous feminist's quote was:

A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.


Now at first I was confused until I realized that she is saying that women don't need men. IF I remember right, she was a major feminist (can't remember the name, but it was a familiar one). To me, that is damaging. Telling our young girls that men are accessories to be had or not, is damaging. It makes marriage, family, a choice. Personally, I feel that if a woman is going to have children, then those two things are a necessity, not an option.

This was Gloria Steinem. Notice, she is now married ... to a man.

Not being a woman, I don't know if they need us or not.

I know as a man that I cherish the companionship of women. I would hope to think that women appreciated men at all different levels -- intellectually, emotionally, sexually, etc. Probably some women don't appreciate men at all, while others are very needy of men's attentions.

I'm sure there's a fully authentic woman out there for me who is complete in herself and who admires and respects who I am as a man. I'm not sure if this kind of woman is becoming more rare with feminism or more common.

I'll let you ladies figure it out for yourself -- it's probably none of my business.

 

[bliz]

A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.

Now at first I was confused until I realized that she is saying that women don't need men. IF I remember right, she was a major feminist (can't remember the name, but it was a familiar one). To me, that is damaging. Telling our young girls that men are accessories to be had or not, is damaging. It makes marriage, family, a choice. Personally, I feel that if a woman is going to have children, then those two things are a necessity, not an option.

You misunderstood Gloria - who is now widowed, BTW... She is not talking about women and men, plural. She is talking about an individual woman. Does a woman have to have a man (be married)? Are women's lives incomplete or lacking if they do not marry? Will a woman cease to exist if there isn't a man in her life?

The answer is NO! Women can, and do, live perfectly happy, God-pleasing lives without husbands. MUST I be married to be a full woman, a complete woman? NO! I chose to marry. I did not feel that I HAD to marry. Marriage and family are a choice. It is not a biological imparitive that each and every woman marry.

On another thread recently a woman wrote about her strugle to feel complete without a man in her life. For a whole range of reasons, she really felt she was a nothing if she did not. How terribly sad... But it also makes me very angry at all the people wo taught her, and lots of women like her, that without a man in their lives they are nothing.

I have many friends who are single. I refuse to accept any argument that means their their lives are somwhow lesser or more impoverished than mine becasue they are not married. My husband has a lot of health problems and I come from a family of folks who live a rathr long time - I anticipate being a widow. While I shall miss my husband more than I know I can imagine, I will not cease to be a full human being upon his death.

Aside from the radical fringe of the women's movement, no one is desirous of a culture or world without men - or with men as mearly sperm donors.

 

[bliz]

Men do not have perfect information about what a given woman wants/doesn't want will be happy about/will be offended by. Men have to act with imperfect information and that means they must risk being offensive to some women, if they hope to be pleasing to another.

This is a really difficult thought for men who want to respect and be respected by women -- that they must necessarily offend and be offensive to a certain proportion of female society. It can be quite inhibiting.

Who likes to be shot a dirty look for opening a door for a woman? Who likes to be accused of sexual harassment for looking at a woman? (this happened to a lesbian friend of mine recently) Are you ready to tell me that a certain proportion of women are rude and their feelings of discomfort and hostility are unjustified, that their criticism and concerns should rightly be ignored? Many feminists will make no such concession.

Guys need to develop a thick skin and develop some confidence in who they are and what they do, but some guys are liable to go way to the other end and stop caring what the cacophony of female voices are saying.

And woman don't face the same kind of issues? Woeman also must act on imperfect abd changing information, too!

Sometimes I'm supposed to be "one of the guys" teasing, joking, giving jabs as well as I take them, and to some men, if I'm not able to do that, I don't belong in the workplace with them or they won't so business with me.

Other guys feel equally uncomfortable with me if I'm not nurturing, if I don't eagerly listen to their stories or don't defer to them or seek their guidance at every turn of the path.

Other guys only work well with women who are cute and flirty.

If I don't make the senior men in my job like me, which means I first must figure out what kind of woman they expect a woman in the workplace should be, and then decide if I'm willing to be like that, or how much I'm willing to be like that, or if a particular guy is willing to accept plain old competence in place of his personal preferences... If the big boys don't like me, I don't get invited to the big jobs and I don't make money. Give me a dirty look for holding open a door any day of the week! I guess wrong about these guys, and I have a very hard time helping to keep my kid in college and put groceries on the table.

 

[Katydid]

And woman don't face the same kind of issues? Woeman also must act on imperfect abd changing information, too!

Yes, but men won't file a sexual harrassment complaint about you telling them they look nice. Women have been known to do that.

 

[bliz]

Oh, please!

How is it that our "protectors" need to be so protected from the give and take of society?!

Meanwhile, women have been facing sexual harassment, rape and quid pro quo sex demands in the work place, since, well, since people started working. And only fairly recently have the harassment and quid pro quo demands been illegal and we all know the history of how seriously rape charges have been taken in this society, until recently.