(Psst. Look again at your second to the last sentence.)

Thanks - long day's journey into book proofs, etc. Correcting!

Drezner and Frum made this point about international relations at the end of the Bloggingheads today... The United States bungles a lot of stuff. But as a rule, when we're going after somebody, that somebody is almost indisputably reprehensible. We don't do parking tickets.

(Their comments early in the clip were very good too, about Clinton getting the girls out of NK. The bad news is that this will indisputably encourage kidnapping stunts like this in the future. The good news is that seeing an ex-president have his dignity drained in totalitarian photo ops like that is an entirely honorable use of an ex-presidency.)

We consider it normal for women with children to work; at the school my children attended in Germany, this was considered borderline socially unacceptable.

What a strange school.

Sociological drift... It's said that fathers, while perhaps drafted, weren't shipped overseas to fight during WWII until October of '43.

(Though I once met a woman who was dying in a Santa Monica hospital who said that that was only on the East coast: Western daddies went out sooner. Go figger.)

> if we are talking about "barbaric
> treatment of women" then I think
> it's important that we all
> understand what the word
> "barbaric" really means.

To wit: Snap!

Bob Hebert was unworthy of publication many years ago. He worsens with age. He is utterly lost in contemporary America and fails to discern how different the lives of 20-40 year olds are from the narrative of oppression and bigotry that he peddles.

I have now wasted more words on Hebert's dreck than I should have.

I'm in sympathy with the crazed killer. I know I'm not supposed to be, but I am. I feel really, really, sorry for him. Feeling unloved sucks!

Tell me the pattern you see, and I will tell you your biases.

Herbert uses the case of a single, certifiably insane mass-murderer to argue that all of American culture is anti-woman.
=====================
Anti-woman! Women in America are the most privileged class in our society. They have way more rights than men or childre.
1.Less qualified female applicants can get into law school, medical school.
2. Less qualified women get on the fire department and police force.
3. Women can choose abortion.
4. Women don't have to register with the selective service.
5. Women can choose to be in the military and almost be guaranteed not to see combat.
6. Women can get pregnant while in the military and get shipped back state-side.
7. Women can end a relationship with any man they have children with at anytime and almost be gauranteed custody and child support.
8. More women get into college than men now.
9. More women graduate highschool.
10.More money is spent on female health issues such as breast cancer, even though there is more prostate cancer than breast cancer.
11.Women live an average of 7 years longer than men.
12. Any woman that chooses to get pregnant and does not have financial resources can qualify for welfare/public assistance.
13. Almost every child show shows the boy portrayed as being stupid and the girl so smart she has to talk down to him in a condescending and demeaning way.
This is what I could think of off the top of my head.

Yep! All of American culture is anti-woman.

Don't know what kind of drugs that idiot is taking.

Certainly, there's no comparison between here and many other countries, but there is obviously still a lot of male anger at women. Maybe more so today than in the past, since we are now seen as a "privileged class".

I was just reading some silly story this morning in the NY post about Reggie Miller and this chick engaged to Diane Von Furstenbergs's son. I glanced down at the comments section, and I was pretty shocked at how degrading/mysogynist the comments were towards the girl. They were like, "Your gf likes big black cock...she's a skank who took it up the hole...it's your fault because you didn't keep your whore in line." etc. Comment after comment by guys, and that's not unusual (I often read comments).

Still, nothing like swallowing acid, but the concept, I think, is that this killer spoke for more men out there than one might think. The hatred is just kind of underground, lurking in clean-cut guys that we women often wouldn't expect would despise us so much.

Posted by: lovelysoul at August 11, 2009 7:42 AM
since we are now seen as a "privileged class".
================================
Tel me in what way are you not a priviledged class?

"The hatred is just kind of underground, lurking in clean-cut guys that we women often wouldn't expect would despise us so much."

Is it hatred or more of a lack of respect?

"Certainly, there's no comparison between here and many other countries, but there is obviously still a lot of male anger at women."

Have you noticed how intense it is in the community that produced rap and hip-hop? Ever wonder why that might be? Ever wonder why an entire community of boys raised with very few men around, with women in charge of basically every institution in the community, might hate women so much? Cornel West inveighs against it, but doesn't analyze it.

"Maybe more so today than in the past, since we are now seen as a "privileged class". "

The feminist analysis of the misandry in thier theory is that it is justified for women to hate and resent men because of all the power men hold. They somehow do not see how that analysis fits misogyny just as well, because they refuse to admit that women hold, and have held, power in any significant way.

"and I was pretty shocked at how degrading/mysogynist the comments were towards the girl."

That's a fair take. Tell me; were you as shocked as the blatant racism of the comments?

"I'm in sympathy with the crazed killer. I know I'm not supposed to be, but I am. I feel really, really, sorry for him. Feeling unloved sucks!"

Nicole, this is taking it a little far. Do you mena that you understand how he could get so warped? OK, I'm with you there. Sympathy is a little bit further than that. I can see how we might have enough sympathy for the women who are the victims in the situation, with some left over for him, but I'm not there yet.

I think for some guys, obviously, it rises to the level of hatred.

And I'm not even saying that we aren't privileged. I agree we are probably over-privileged now in many ways, just as many minorities or previously discriminated-against groups are. It gets to be overkill, the pendulum swings too far while trying to right past wrongs. But I don't think that ever justifies hatred for an entire group. That's the problem - when anyone becomes so aggrieved that they fail to see members of any group as individuals, made up of both bad and good. They just see the bad.

Yes, Jim, I was shocked by the racism too, but what shocks me the most are the whole, "you need to keep your bitch in line" kind of comments. It's hard to believe that there are men out there who still think that way...and that maybe they're in relationships. I wonder about them. Are they really with women that they "keep in line" and control, or is it sort of a fantasy part they are playing out in a comment section? Or maybe they're like the killer - really alone with no one to love.

I'm sort of with Nicole there. I have empathy for him, as I imagine he suffered from very poor social skills, so he grew angry with women, and his anger probably scared the few women he might've attracted away, even if he thought he could hide it....so he grew even angrier with women. Seems like a vicious cycle.

Tel me in what way are you not a priviledged class?

Women poop too.

I think this country is too feminist! I disagree with the basic premise of this article i.e. that this so called 'lack of misogyny' is a good thing. It is nothing but political correctness pure and simple. We could learn a lot from Saudi Arabia and the way they treat their women.

Harry, WTF? If this was humor/irony, I don't get it. If you're serious, why don't you go live in Saudi Arabia, because you sure don't belong in this country.

/foul mood

Am I the only guy who, upon reading Lovelysoul's comment thought, "Gee, she sounds just like a bigot, only she thinks poorly of men, rather than an ethnic group."

She offers up sweeping, unsupported statements that don't really say much of substance, but have a deprecating quality regarding men in general.

to wit: (1) "there is obviously still a lot of male anger at women..."

Huh? Obviously? A lot? And the anger from men towards women is the only one sufficient in quantity ("lot") to merit comment?

And (2) "... killer spoke for more men out there than one might think."

Oh? He did? Really? Drop the third person and tell us, exactly, how many do *YOU* think he spoke for? 5%? 10%? 50%? A number, please. Let's plumb the depths of *YOUR* opinion about men, not inumerate, unclear concepts like "more men" and what "one might think."

And (3) "The hatred is just kind of underground, lurking in clean-cut guys that we women often wouldn't expect would despise us so much."

Now I am calling it out: naked bigotry, speaking in a calm voice. Right here, in this last sentence, where every man is a potential hater, maybe even a killer, no matter what mask they wear. The implication is all men harbor the killer's sin.

And I note not one word of acknowledgement of the good brought to the world every day by billions of boys and men to balance out your slurs.

Without a doubt, there is plenty of misogyny in the world. That is troubling. And men have much to answer for. Much. But we also struggle with misandry, and people who suffer from it may not see they have a problem.

David M. is the one who is on drugs. Sad pathetic idiots like him make me laugh.

He says that 'women have more rights than men or children' then he lists 13 things that aren't rights. What a moron. Some woman obviously dumped him, or more likely he is just just a virgin who takes his anger out in stupidity.

Hahahahaha, what a jerk!

"That's the problem - when anyone becomes so aggrieved that they fail to see members of any group as individuals, made up of both bad and good. They just see the bad."

Indeed, indeed. /Arched eyebrow

Karen,

Don't be stupid, I would never live in a Muslim country just because they don't subscribe to politically correct ideas about feminism. This country didn't used to be so feminist, and we used to have laws against homo-sexuals that were very similar to Saudi Arabia. Why do women and gays get all sorts of rights? Political COrrectness. It embarrasses me that Islamic countries have better laws about gays and women than we do.

Out of 13 things on the list of why I am priveleged as a woman, only 3 applied to me at all - the fact that I graduated from high school, attended college, and did not have to register for the selective service. Some of the items on the list are really stupid - how is it a product of "American culture" that women live an average of 7 years longer? I agree that women do unfairly benefit from affirmative action (just as male minorities do). And in a divorce/child custody situation, women are way better off. Yes, this is unfair and something should be done about it, but saying that women are a priveledged class is quite an exaggeration.

I'd like to see anyone name one single country, outside Western Europe and the English-speaking world (U.S., Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand), where women are better off by feminist standards than they are in the U.S.

Why do women and gays get all sorts of rights? I don't know, because they are fucking human beings? Tell me, what is it about Muslim countries that you DON'T like?

I don't see how your derived all that from my comments, Spartee. The fact that I have empathy for the killer would even dispute what you're saying. I believe there are many many wonderful men, but we're not talking about those. We're talking about the frustrations and anger of men like the killer, and it's clear to me, even from being on this site, that as far as the anti-female sentiments are concerned, many men out there could identify with him. Would they pick up a gun and go shoot a bunch of women? No. Any more than most women would. But it would be just as wrong for me to contend that there are no male-hating feminists in this country who would secretly (or perhaps not so secretly) applaud such action. There is, and they would.

So, can't we talk about male anger too? It's not misandry just to talk about it.

David M. is the one who is on drugs. Sad pathetic idiots like him make me laugh.

He says that 'women have more rights than men or children' then he lists 13 things that aren't rights. What a moron. Some woman obviously dumped him, or more likely he is just just a virgin who takes his anger out in stupidity.

Hahahahaha, what a jerk!

Posted by: Ralphie at August 11, 2009 9:00 AM
==================
Ralphie I see I have run in to quite an intellectual.

Would you care to comment on the 13 things or would you just like to continue you ad hominem attacks?

I will give you some help.

An ad hominem attack/arguement consists of replying to an arguement or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the arguement or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the arguement or producing evidence against the claim.

I await your enlightenment...

P.S. I honestly like to know who I disagree with.

Do you consider yourself a Feminist? Liberal?

Possibly the sweeping statement which was made lovelysoul. Very harsh and broad. I could completely understand disrespect because I have completely seen this many times in many places from quite a few of them men that I work or have to associate with. Hatred however?

Rex. Spot on.

There are women haters everywhere, in all cultures, including this country. But women's lack of appreciation for how far we have come and how great things are here for us in the US is irresponsible, to put it mildly.

I can show empathy and compassion for another human for just about anything, but not Murder. I don't care how bad his life was. And there are women on this thread doing it!!!! What if a man said this??!!!

On Herbert. Men who make try to make feminist arguments on behalf of women make me want to puke. It's visceral for me. "Get out of our yard buddy!!!" Men who write this kinda shit look to me as if he they are trying to chop their own dick off in print to impress female readers.

Great job, Anne.

Posted by: lovelysoul at August 11, 2009 8:30 AM

And I'm not even saying that we aren't privileged. I agree we are probably over-privileged now in many ways, just as many minorities or previously discriminated-against groups are.
=======================
I really do appreciate your honest and mature response. Thank you.

I guess I don't consider men who use words like "whore" and "skank" in routine commentary to just be "disrespectful." To me, it denotes quite a bit of hatred towards women in general. Wouldn't you feel the same reading comments from women who used "bastard" or "prick" so easily? I mean, about a guy she doesn't even know and who hasn't wronged her in any way? I would. I would think to myself, "that woman really hates men."

That last paragraph of mine was a mess. Multi-tasking. Mea culpa with apologies.

Out of 13 things on the list of why I am priveleged as a woman, only 3 applied to me at all - the fact that I graduated from high school, attended college, and did not have to register for the selective service. Some of the items on the list are really stupid - how is it a product of "American culture" that women live an average of 7 years longer? I agree that women do unfairly benefit from affirmative action (just as male minorities do). And in a divorce/child custody situation, women are way better off. Yes, this is unfair and something should be done about it, but saying that women are a priveledged class is quite an exaggeration.

Posted by: Karen at August 11, 2009 9:13 AM
===================================
Karen tell me specifically how women are not a priviledged class?
1. Better educational opportunities.
2. The only person who has a decision in abortion.
3.Preferential treatment in family courts for divorce/custody.
4. Female sentencing discount in criminal court. Meaning less likely to serve or get the same amount of time in jail a a man for the same crime.
5. More money allocated to women's medical issues, although women typically live 7 years longer.
Tell me specifically as I have listed all my things specifically where women are not a priviledged class.
Just because it's not what you have been taught, and you don't want to believe it's true, doesn't make it so.

I know it may be hard for a person to wrap their head around it but those are the facts.

Women do not make up the "priviledged" class. So what?

The victimhood thing is just hurting you, Karen. We have things so much better here than anywhere else. Majority of the privilige argument is an illusion women use to blame others for their lack of willingness to empowering themselves and make something with their own lives. I would say, that would be 90% of it as an adult.

While I can acknowledge certain privileges women don't receive equal to men...I don't live by them. On occassion I point it out, when it's important, but other than that, it serves no useful purpose.

Most women, quite frankly, need to get up off their asses and do something about the treatment they are putting up with if thats what their life circumstances brought them. Personal responsibility is key.

"Yes, Jim, I was shocked by the racism too, but what shocks me the most are the whole, "you need to keep your bitch in line" kind of comments. "

Yeah, me too. It's very simple - it reduces her to an animal whose behavior has to be controlled. This is very much the way a lot of advertizing and popular culture portrays men - disgusting all around. And that is commiseration, not whattaboutery intended to lessen the loathesomeness of those comments, in case there's any doubt.

"What a moron. Some woman obviously dumped him, or more likely he is just just a virgin who takes his anger out in stupidity."

Well here we have some stock-standard shaming language - because, God knows, there's just no way a man can be worth anything if some woman dumps him; it'll just ruin his whole ability to make a valid argument - and all based on traditional gender role stereotypes. Way to be real progressive there, Ralphie. I'm sure you consider yourself real enlightened, a real champion of women and their rights. Did you name yourself after the way people react to your twaddle?

Privelege - the whole concept is stupid and dishonest, if only because the people using it refuse to distinguish between advantages a person has earned and the advantages a person has by luck of birth - actual priveleges - and also because they arbitrarily divide the world up inot "oppressed" and "oppressors" and then refuse to admit that "oppressed" may have some unearned advantages. And there are other things wrong with it too. It's childishly binary and simplistic.

Let me make it clear that I don't think women are priveledged OR oppressed.

I can understand the why and how's of the guy's thinking in this case and like with many things his actions are a result of a combo of issues. Yeah, he clearly struck out a lot, I'm also guessing it wasn't because he was a men's rights type but a self involved wacko who gave off bad vibes and a apparently bad family history. It became a vicious circle and killing random women isn't the answer, its an ego trip from a delusional guy.

Sadly and not surprisingly, many folks are using this as a catchall to label male angst against feminist policy and female priviledge as "a bunch of woman hating wackos who want to kill us", all to make it easy to dismiss their arguments. Same with the guy's supposed religious angle.

Now, if society keep these policies up and you will have men who do reach the end of the line and "go nuts" because its either that or drug yourself into a quick death or stupor as you live out the rest of your existence as a slave to women and society that favors them.

Karen, as to you contention about female priviledge, women live 7 years longer than men but start collecting social security (without penalty on amounts) 3 years earlier. While there are many unfair things in life, this is one among many issues that is legislated inequality.

"I guess I don't consider men who use words like "whore" and "skank" in routine commentary to just be "disrespectful." To me, it denotes quite a bit of hatred towards women in general. "

Yes, but those words carry lots of meanings.

"Skank" to me means someone who is sloppy, like a slattern (female) or a slob (male. I know very well that the word carries a sexual judgement for some English-speakers but not for me; it's just that I don't associate sexual promiscuity with dirt, for either sex.

"Whore" - I know that for many the sting of this word is it's sexual aspect, but for just as many people the sting is the sense it carries of someone who degrades him/herself for money. I have heard it applied to men who do other peole's dirty work - "corporate whore" and such-like. This may have to do with a sub-cultural value system - I have a military background, and that tends to make me look down on entrepreneurial and market-driven deals people make.

How's this for misogynist - it's very common in Britain for peiople to call both men and women "cunt" and "twat" meaning only that they have said or done something stupid. This usage is exactly like the French word 'con'. There terms are not only cognate, in the case of 'cunt'; they are exactly analogous in both languages.

But for me as an American, I don't get that in my dialect. I just hear the misogyny.

"...women live 7 years longer than men but start collecting social security (without penalty on amounts) 3 years earlier."

Seriously, I did not know that.

I think women are privileged and oppressed. So are men, in different ways. So are minorities and majorities, in different ways. The world is a complicated place.

I think we are privileged in certain ways. Some are political and/or legal, which still consider us a weaker sex entitled to more help than, let's say, white males, at least. But I don't think throwing abortion in as a privilege is really fair. Those options are available because of one's autonomy over one's body, and it's just biological. Men have certain advantages because of biology too, such as strength, but it's not really a privilege. It's just what is...what makes the most sense. Things are never going to be completely equal between genders.

Jim said: "Yeah, me too. It's very simple - it reduces her to an animal whose behavior has to be controlled. This is very much the way a lot of advertizing and popular culture portrays men - disgusting all around. And that is commiseration, not whattaboutery intended to lessen the loathesomeness of those comments, in case there's any doubt."

And here is a whataboutery intended to lessen the loathsomeness of those comments...

I've come to believe that you do have to "keep them in line", male or female when in a relationship. That doesn't mean a short leash necessarily and controlling their every move. Its all about reciprocity, the golden rule, treating people how you want to be treated. Keeping them in line means not tolerating their disrespectful antics. The kicker here is, men don't have a lot of options in that regard when you consider current DV laws. The examples of Bobbit, Susan Smith, Clara Harris, Mary K. Letourno(spelling) and Mary Winkler from TN come to mind. I don't see them as outliers anymore but as the norm.

You also have to weigh the fact that many of the laws that are really about protecting children also benefit women, as their caretakers, but the underlying intent isn't about that. Much of the welfare assistance, for instance, isn't so much about benefiting women as that we don't have the stomach to kick innocent children onto the streets. It's more pro-child than pro-female, yet it's a shame that so many women take advantage.

"Its all about reciprocity, the golden rule, treating people how you want to be treated. Keeping them in line means not tolerating their disrespectful antics."

Yes, but I've never met a person, male or female, who would use that line and mean it as applied to both parties. People who use that term are usually hypocritical and expect that they can do whatever they want but the other person needs to be controlled.

Personally, if I heard a man I was dating say anything like, "he needs to keep his woman in line", I would be out of there so fast...and I'd give the same advice to a male friend if his gf said something similar. Nobody should control anybody.

Harry- you do realize that you would not have this lovely forum on which to comment if we had similar laws to Saudi Arabia, right? Amy would most likely be illiterate, and it would be very dangerous for her to express her views (assuming she was allowed to learn to read) on any sort of public forum.

You do not deserve the freedoms this still wonderful country has afforded us. I do hope that you take your own advice and relocate.

As for David's list, those aren't 'rights,' those are the results of certain policy decisions (and women's longevity compared to men is the result of several factors, many of which are simply biological. Women also have a tendency to seek medical care long before men do, and as such are more likely to get the care they need. Not because men are precluded from getting medical care, but because women tend to be more proactive about it).

But since I don't want to make an 'ad hominem' attack, shall I go down the list?

1. College admissions, et. al. Not a right, policy decisions made by the governing board of colleges. These are still being fought out in courts, and I for one am hopeful that affirmative action will wither away.
2. See above. Not a right, a policy decision, and one that you could legally challenge if you felt so inclined.
3. Well, yes. There's a reason you don't see guys qeueing for abortion. You could poke around in there all day and never find a fetus. Women's access to abortion is heavily restricted in many states and is by no means a concrete right for many women. It is still a heavily contested area. You can squeal all you want about the unfairness of it all, but biology is gonna have to win this one.
4-6., Again, policy decisions by the government and the military. And the rationale for many of these policies is not to protect women necessarily, but to maintain the viability of our military forces. It's really not helpful to have a pregnant woman on the front lines, not only for her, but for the person she's serving next to.
7. Again, not a right. You still have legal recourse, although our legal system is heavily biased against fathers in most states.
8. True. That's also because more women apply than men now. And more women are choosing to pursue degrees in careers that you didn't necessarily need a college degree to perform in the past, so more are going to college out of necessity. I finished college, my brother didn't, because he chose not to go for a variety of reasons.
9. Again, not a right. A statistical phenomenon with a large number of contributing factors.
10. True. But a lot of the money for breast cancer comes from private donations and the huge PR machine that groups like the Komen Foundation have. Men's health nonprofits are definitely not as aggressive in their marketing efforts.
11. See my paragraph above.
12. Not a right. A public policy, and one that is being cut from many budgets right now. A poor public policy, in my opinion (look at that-I'm a woman, and I disagree with it).
13. Agreed, and it's a shame. Have you ever researched print, radio, or TV ads from the 50s through the early 70s? Extremely condescending towards women. The pendulum has swung the other way. I choose not to watch things that portray men negatively.

There are certain elements of American culture that are anti-women, and there are certain elements that are anti-man. I have met women who virulently hated men, and men who deeply loathed women. That's not unique to our society.

I believe that while American culture is certainly flawed in some respects, it's still one of the most if not the most egalitarian society in existence.

And I'd like to do my part to keep it that way, so if anyone wants to set up a Send Harry to the UAE fund, I would be happy to contribute.

Sooooo the book How to Make Your Man Behave in 21 days or less Using the Secrets of Professional Dog Trainers is verboten huh? who knew? sorry, feeling silly.

On a serious note i cringe when i hear or see arguments like the linked article makes. I also cringe when I hear neighbors and associates yak. Usually it is about men in general and their man in particular. I like men. The undercurrent I feel when they get rolling is that they dont. If the ones complaining and yakking would just be able to relax and let a little 'like' in the world would be a much better place.

OT Crid I answered your question about cramdowns.

"13. Agreed, and it's a shame. Have you ever researched print, radio, or TV ads from the 50s through the early 70s? Extremely condescending towards women. The pendulum has swung the other way. I choose not to watch things that portray men negatively."

Thanks, but I don't perceive 50s ads to have been demeaning toward women. They may have been portrayed in traditional roles, but they were also portrayed as good at what they did.

Posted by: Choika at August 11, 2009 11:03 AM
========
To Choika

I should have said priviledges instead of rights.

My fundamental point is that American culture is not anti-woman as the author of the article states and I gave many examples to support that.

MiOnline-

Look for print ads by Volkswagon and other car makers, as well as ads released during the late 50s to late 60s (by the early 70s, admakers had gotten the message that women had money to spend on more than just toasters and kid's clothing and were retargeting their advertising dollars accordingly) that were targeted towards men. Also, ads for men's clothing and personal products, as well as alcohol. Also, ads for women's 'personal hygiene products (from the 50s. The tone and content changed markedly by the early 60s).'

Many ads of the 50s and 60s for domestic goods were targeted towards women, and as such were rather complimentary (women were responsible for a large portion of domestic spending).

I have done rather a lot of research on this topic, and got to view ad archives that aren't available easily to the general public (findable only through limited access research portals, etc), and getting access to ad archives held by those corporations, and many of those corporations don't exactly want their old advertisements out in the general sphere, particularly those that reflect badly on them.

Which is all an incredibly longwinded way of saying that I know of which I speak. Ads are, of course, targeted to specific audiences. I highly doubt Axe is going to create an ad showing a mature couple in a mutually affirming relationship, as (duh) their product is targeted towards men between 16-28, roughly.

Those complaining that TV ads that run during the day between 11 and 4 on Lifetime are demeaning towards men are right, but don't forget that Auto Weekly and Maxim also run ads that are demeaning towards women. It all depends on who you're selling to. It always will.

Regarding the comments directed at Von Furstenberg on NY Post site, I'm inclined to think they're not so much driven by genuine misogyny & racism as by the fact that Von Furstenberg's behavior was utterly contemptible. His is the kind of idiocy that almost encourages the crudest sort of mockery and taunting others can imagine.

It's not that the comments aren't misogynistic and racist. They are. It's that they are intended to by hurtful by mirroring and holding up to scorn what the commenters assume Von Furstenberg is himself thinking, not what they themselves necessarily think.

I agree that American culture is not fundamentally anti-women. There are certain aspects of our culture that are anti-woman, just as there are aspects that are anti-man.

But we are certainly not anti-woman as a culture, as other cultures are. What is more exemplary of a society with an endemic hatred of women-the random psycho who guns down three women (terrible, I think we all would agree), or the societies where systemic abuse of women is tolerated, encouraged, and even codified into and protected by law?

I have a hard time taking American feminist seriously, as they have remained conspicuously (for the most part) quiet about abuses in other parts of the world where abuse is predicated and excused by the mantle of religion or cultural prerogative. But that is what happens when you become a cultural universalist.

Those complaining that TV ads that run during the day between 11 and 4 on Lifetime are demeaning towards men are right, but don't forget that Auto Weekly and Maxim also run ads that are demeaning towards women. It all depends on who you're selling to. It always will.

How about ads that show men to be idiots, while showing their wives to be the only thing between them and early death? Or the recent Yellow Book ads that air during Yankees games on YES that show the man being one step from killing himself doing something simple and she saves not him, but herself by using yellow book.

Home Depot and Lowes were competing for a while to see how much bullshit a man would take ad-wise before it started to impact sales. I'm guessing they took a hit, because they stopped with the ads where the poor, put-upon wife was desperately trying to get help doing a project in the home while her idiot husband was hurting himself with power tools.

In it's furious attempts to placate the dozen or so screaming harridans that Limbaugh accurately named "femininazis", the ad companies have gone batshit fucking loco.

If the United States is fundamentally anti-woman, then I'm obviously not living in the United States.

I agree that ads and TV shows tend to make fun of men, but I think a lot of it is purely about finding humor. Who writes these ads? Surely, the advertising industry is full of men. And men probably feel more comfortable poking fun at themselves than they do at women. It's like how I, as a white person, can't use the n-word, but Chris Rock can say it and everybody laughs. He can poke fun of his own kind, but whites can't.

There's the lingering aspect of female oppression and DV, so it wouldn't be as funny for the know-it-all man to be rolling his eyes at his stupid spouse. That still cuts too close to home for many women. Yet, women can make fun of each other - or call each other names - and it's funny. Advertisers know all this. It's not anti-woman, it's just what sells and what doesn't.

Those complaining that TV ads that run during the day between 11 and 4 on Lifetime = ads that show men to be idiots, while showing their wives to be the only thing between them and early death.

The ads I mentioned above are targeted towards women. So the ad agencies have taken a particular tack that they are gambling will appeal to women. The strategy hasn't changed, just the content.

Ads from the 50s that pushed small domestic appliances or housekeeping aids targeted women, but used a different approach. As our society has changed, the perspective through which we view things like advertising has changed. An ad from that time would appear either hopelessly old fashioned or cutely retro.

I am a woman, and the ads that show men as bumbling fools I find neither cute nor appealing. So the ad agencies' strategy failed when it came to this particular consumer.

Does anyone remember that mommyblogger flap over the Advil ad that talked about carrying babies in a sling? I think Amy blogged about it. The mommybloggers wrote to Advil and got the ad yanked and an apology. Because they are a large target audience for that corporation.

You are more than welcome to write, call, or e-mail the corporate headquarters of groups that produce these advertisements. As you mentioned, those ads by Home Depot and Lowe's (corporations with a large target audience of men) pulled those ads because they probably noticed a negative reaction among their target audiences (many agencies do ad testing before and after the release of particular campaigns). Companies are invested in reaching consumers, and if certain ads are considered offensive by a corp's target audience, they will sometimes remove them.

What I am trying to say is that if you find these ads infuriating and demeaning towards men, as I do, you as a consumer are not without recourse. You have shopping dollars, you can choose where to spend them. You can choose to contact corporate headquarters and express your displeasure.

Consumer groups have gotten certain video games pulled from Amazon, certain ad campaigns yanked or brought to the attention of headquarters who didn't know they were being run (this often happens when subsidiary companies outside the US handle their own ads without oversight from the parent corp group) and subsequently pulled, and sometimes official apologies from corporations. Feel free to organize and do the same.

Lovelysoul-

Well put. An ad poking fun at a minority member would not as well received as one poking fun at a majority member (well, unless you're talking about the House or Senate).

Ultimately, advertising is about what sells, period. We have experienced certain paradigm shifts in the realm of gender and race relations in this country in the last 50 years, and that is reflected in advertising just as it is in other parts of society. Undoubtably, we will experience others in the future, and things will change again.

Choika, one thing: "and women's longevity compared to men is the result of several factors, many of which are simply biological." This is often stated as prima facie, but I'm not sure I buy it. I've never heard any scientific theory for why women should live that much longer then men. Maybe there is one, but I have not come across it. There is no evolutionary reason that is obvious to me; in fact, I could argue that it's anti-evolutionary for women to live much past menopause.

The disparity used to be explained in sociological terms. First, it was that men were more likely to engage in life-shortening hazardous occupations, and prior to the 20th century, most men did. Second, it was explained as being a disparity in unhealty behaviors, such as smoking. However, social and technological progress have swept these explanations away. Despite that, not only has the life-expentency gap not shrunk -- it's gotten bigger. Life expentency for women continues to improve, while life expentency for men topped out around 1990 and since then has held steady, or gone down a little, depending on which numbers you look at. There's been a lot written about how Social Security is going bust in part due to people living far beyond what the original plan anticipated. The part of that story that is usually omitted is that the group of people who draw off of Social Security for 20 years or more is largely female.

Wouldn't better prenatal and obstetric care account for some of the improvement, Dave? Isn't life-expectancy just an average, and now women don't die in childbirth as frequently. Or is that taken into account?

It seems to me that men do engage in more risky, testerone-driven activities, and that probably effects average longevity. But I'm curious how they calculate the figures. More men probably die younger, for careless reasons(gangs, fast cars, fights, etc), but once both sexes reach middle-age, do they really have such a difference in life-expectancy?

"Yes, but I've never met a person, male or female, who would use that line and mean it as applied to both parties. People who use that term are usually hypocritical and expect that they can do whatever they want but the other person needs to be controlled.
Personally, if I heard a man I was dating say anything like, "he needs to keep his woman in line", I would be out of there so fast...""

I agree with every bit of this.

"What I am trying to say is that if you find these ads infuriating and demeaning towards men, as I do, you as a consumer are not without recourse. You have shopping dollars, you can choose where to spend them. "

It is more complicated in practice, especially if you are married. In that case, you would have to have a heart to heart with your wife if she is the one with the spending authority in the house. (Translation: the one with the chore of doing all the shopping) You could start by taking out the box of Cheerios and asking just WTF she means by bringing that man-hating shit into the house.

Advertising is aimed at who makes the final purchase decision.

For household items, that is generally women. Women purchase pain relievers and other medications for the household. Therefore, Advil had a vested interest in not ticking them off.

Advertisements that show women as the wiser (and smarter) sex are designed to appeal to a woman's vanity (Dr. Mom, husband is all thumbs, etc.).

Since these advertisements are generally for items that are still predominantly purchased by women (household items), they are advertised frequently on television during prime time (when many women are thinking about grocery lists and planning out tomorrow's shopping agenda).

Home improvement ads are also frequent in prime time...when wives and moms are looking at that worn-out kitchen and thinking how nice it would be with an upgrade.

Home Depot thought that since women control the household project decisions (let's do the bathroom next and let's do it in blue), they should be the target of their ads. What they forgot was that men generally make the final purchase decision (where to buy the materials, tools, and parts).

As women are becoming more work-place oriented and men are doing more household-related tasks, the paradigms used in these sexist commercials are becoming outdated.

But advertising does not lead trends, it follows them. That means it's going to be a little while longer before Madison Avenue figures out that making every husband and father in a commercial a Homer Simpson might cost them money as men get sick of being portrayed as mildly-retarded apes.

Advertisements targetted toward men are usually planned for times when men are known to be watching television, such as sporting events, war/action movies, non-HGTV home repair shows, and auto-related shows. These commercials are usually less sexist to both genders (since advertisers can no long portray woman as dim bulbs or obejectivize them without generating a flurry of hate mail - also because women watch more sports today than they used to).

Even Viagra had to change its theme when Cialis used a couples-oriented approach to counter the older drug's performance-oriented approach.

Personally, I'm ready to boycott Yoplait. I like their yogurt and buy a fair amount of it, but am tired of the commercial in which the wife describes to a friend all the wonderful deserts (flavors of Yoplait) she's been eathing to lose weight while dufus hubby roots around the refrigerator trying to find the Boston creme pie and raspberry tarts (as if it's the first time he's ever looked at anything in the refrigerator other than the beer shelf).

Dave -

You're missing the biggest reason for why men die before their wives: they want to.

Some woman at a receptio told Churchill that if he were her husband, she would feed him poison. He replied that if he were her husband, he would take it.

Dave-

Women live longer for a variety of factors. This was not always the case. Women used to have a much higher mortality rate because of childbirth and maternal injuries and diseases.

Now that our obstretrical care has improved, this isn't a factor in the developing world anymore. In Third World countries, women still predecease men by a much, much higher rate.

Behavior factors include: women are less prone to engage in risky behavior, particularly in the teens and twenties, that if it doesn't result in death at that age, contributes to it later. Women suffer from alcoholism at a lower rate (although that has been steadily increasing, and the sexes may be equal in that respect soon). Fewer women smoke longer.

Women are also much more likely to seek preventative care and take a more proactive role in their health care. There are a lot of hypotheses about why this may be so, from women ostensibly being better communicators (arguable) to being more prone to visit the doctor sooner when something is wrong. They are also more likely to seek help for diseases such as depression or addiction than men are.

Biological factors include: women suffer from a lower rate of heart disease and related cardiovascular issues than men do, which is also linked to some of the behavioral issues I mentioned above. No prostate cancer.

There are a lot of other contributing factors, and longevity in the US varies heavily depending on geographic location and socioeconomic status. But you could find all of this out, as well as access to many studies, by just Googling it or visiting research organizations that collect this type of data. After you do the research, decide for yourself whether or not you 'buy it.'

I don't like Cheerios that much. They taste like cardboard. I prefer bacon.

And, Dave, if it makes you feel better, I eat an insane amount of fat and will likely die before my dearly beloved.

Jim-why not have a heart to heart with her, if this is an issue that really upsets you? Hopefully she will value your opinion. If she doesn't, I'm afraid I can't help you. But if you are serious about not wanting to support corporations that promote this type of mindset, that would be a first step. That's why I don't buy Yoplait. That, and it's full of corn syrup.

David M --

You are behind the times in at least one respect. Women no longer have any advantage in the law school admissions process. That used to be the case, back when few women applied to law school, but it has not been true for quite a few years now.

I don't know the situation with regard to medical school admissions. But for me, the fact that you pulled the law school assertion out of your butt casts some doubt on your other statements.

The fact that more women graduate from high school and college, or live longer -- how exactly do you attribute that to their receiving an unfair advantage? Couldn't it be that they study more on average, and that they take better care of themselves? Actually, I think there are a few studies to that effect. The life span gap closed up a bit when women started to smoke in greater numbers, for example.

Finally, with regard to your statement that boys are portrayed in TV and other entertainment as dumb while girls are portrayed as smart -- I'm not sure exactly what you're watching, but it is a skewed sample. By and large, heros in children's books and films tend to be overwhelmingly boys, not girls. That's because, in general, girls are more willing to watch/read about boys than boys are about girls.

Finally, it would be really easy to come up with a comparable list of ways in which men are "advantaged". (There are more male scientists! Male basketball players get paid more! Etc.) But it would be a pretty bogus and pointless list, just as yours is.

All that said, I tend to agree with the majority of posters here that women -- and people in general -- need to stop whining so much about being disadvantaged except in situations where they can show that they were, in fact, treated unfairly.

On this psycho killer guy -- I don't have any sympathy for him. At all. I read a bit of his blog, and he was a self-pitying, cold-hearted, evil piece of shit.

"it denotes quite a bit of hatred towards women in general."

And not hatred of just 'skanks' and 'hos'?

Are women a privileged class?

Absolutely.

Are they as privileged as some people think?

Absolutely NOT.

Yes women get certain benefits in court as a matter of course, in divorce, as a matter of course, and in child support (something covered here many many times), and a variety of other areas some of which have already been covered.

But these are not canon, these are not certain, and these things are changing bit by bit already, to remove gender and replace with role. (The rise in the number of men collecting alimony for example. Disgusting from my perspective, but there it is)

Is there an undercurrent of hatred for women in American society?

Absolutely NOT.

The women who assert this, are asserting their lack of understanding about how men relate to their peers.

Its not hatred, its equality.

Men mock each other absolutely viciously, or as said in south park, "We're dudes, we rip on each other."

Men are starting to relate to female public figures the same as they do to male public figures.

Girls, guys don't hate your gender when they make some comment about your cunt or favorite cock type, no, chances are most of those guys have girlfriends of their own, contrary to what their words might suggest to you. No, they're treating you just like they do other guys.

Wasn't that the point of the whole movement? Perhaps not so pleasant as was originally thought eh?

See here is the problem:

If we treat you overly gently with our words or manners, we're sexist and condescending.

If we treat you like we do each other, we're brutish and angry misogynistic pigs.

I know its to much to ask you all to make up your collective minds. Individuality is a bitch eh? *L*

BUT, can we of the male gender at least ask that, generally speaking, our behavior in either direction be recognized for what it is...instead of what it would be if our words came from a woman's lips?

Gail-

Thank you. It's very easy to come up with a list of real or supposed 'privileges' accorded to one gender. But both genders have certain advantages and disadvantages in our society today.

Besides, it's just as easy to look at David's list as a list of potential disadvantages depending on your perspective.

Yes, women don't serve in combat positions as often as men. That's because there are fewer women soldiers overall and fewer still that are eligible to serve. But many are in hazardous duty areas as I write this, and several have died. Women who want to serve in combat areas are often denied. And female soldiers suffer a staggeringly high rate of sexual assault/physical assault while in the service.

Yes, women can get abortions. But that means that many women are facing pregnancies they feel unable to carry to term, and that is a shame, not a 'privilege.' Abortion is not an easy or painless operation.

Yes, more women graduate from college. But that means they're bearing a higher amount of the burden for paying for it than men are, including women who have more female children than males, and often graduating with a high amount of debt in an uncertain job market.

Yes, women live longer. They're also more likely to end their life in poverty than men, and women statistically have smaller retirement savings amounts than men (often as a result of having worked fewer years at poorer paying jobs-the tradeoff many women make to raise children).

Yes, there's more attention and money funneled to women's health causes like breast cancer. But women pay higher premiums for healthcare than men, and often pay more for regular medications like birth control. Also, there's been little advances on a male birth control, and the female equivalent of Viagra, Intrinsa, was blocked by the Bush era FDA from reaching the market.

Robert-
It would be a refreshing change if people would stop blaming all women for the unfortunate and foolish byproducts of the more radical parts of the feminist movement. I wasn't even alive in the 60s and 70s, thank you, when Dworkin and her cohorts were shrieking that all men were rapists, they just didn't know it yet.

Perhaps if we could all exercise a little more civility, particularly in public realms like the workplace, these types of 'misunderstandings' wouldn't occur so often. I would consider it offensive for anyone, male or female, to make the types of comments you've described. And anyone I supervise who does so to another coworker would be summarily fired. It is my responsibility to create a productive workplace, and that type of behavior has no place in it.

As for making up our 'collective minds,' what, are we the Borg now? You do realize that women are not a massive aggregate mass in which a single thought ripples across millions of brains, right? And that women will have different reactions because they are, wait for it, different people.

Personally, I am not a man and have no desire to be treated like one.

"I've never heard any scientific theory for why women should live that much longer then men."

I can't explain it to you as to the reasons why, but it is biological. Males at every point from conception on are more likely to die then females. Male fetus's are miscarried more frequently, male newborns die more frequently, and that's not behavioral. NICU's acknowledge this in their treatment of infants-boy infants get more aggressive treatment faster than a girl will-they call them "wimpy white boys"-apparently black and hispanic boy babies are a little heartier than white boys, but still below all girls.

My pedi teaches at UTMB, and told me that when an infant comes into the hospital with a fever, and they are deciding whether to do the full work-up with spinal tap and everything, or the lesser one with just blood cultures, being a boy is one point in favor of the full work-up right off the bat.

"I wasn't even alive in the 60s and 70s, thank you, when Dworkin and her cohorts were shrieking that all men were rapists, they just didn't know it yet."

I really liked most of your comments, Choika, but what did that mean?

Regarding advertising, a few years ago the Honda Pilot was advertised on Superbowl Sunday with a "My husband was raised by wolves" spot. I wrote a letter of protest to Honda and got a few others to do so as well.

I got a letter of apology for this, and some time later Honda came up with the "Mr. Opportunity" ad campaign. Much better.

As for sexy women being used in the past to sell cars, etc., - it is a matter of opinionh whether that was "sexist" or whether it was actually something positive. The whole feminist concept of "objectification" is flawed.

I really liked most of your comments, Choika, but what did that mean?

Well, first, it means she's a baby. This is not a bad thing.

Second, it means that she would like to move beyond the enormous negative impact that gender feminism and the shrieking harridans created.

Which gives me hope that there is, in fact, a return to sanity occurring somewhere in society.

I'd have to agree with you Choika, it WOULD be nice if people would stop blaming all women for out of control feminism and what not.

But you see, men don't relate to each other in overly civil terms, we rip on each other, make fun of each other, we can even get rough with each other, with not a bit of it taken personally. A few things are off limits of course, mothers, wives, children, but other than that, well its just how we happen to bond.

You must have misunderstood my post a bit. I stated that it IS A BIT MUCH (yes I have a gift for understatement) to ask that women make up their collective minds.

Anyway, your portion about "offensive" is precisely the issue at hand. Now in regards to the work place, yes there are standards of conduct within reason, but the problem with things like the word "offensive" is that it is a slippery slope of perception and entirely relative to the person. Men almost never have this issue with regards to each other, and when it does occur, it is almost always disposed of with the greatest of ease. Is this the case between the sexes? Obviously not.

You might not want to be treated like a man, personally I prefer to treat women like women as well, but we're socially at something of a crossroads. Society demands that we treat men and women equally, and this has translated into the public mind as "the same", but as you so plainly stated, you don't desire "identical" treatment, just "equal" treatment. How then can this best be accomplished? If you expect men not to behave like men towards other men when you are around...is this equality? If you expect men to treat you with gentlemanly conduct in their relationship with you, be it coworker, employee, supervisor, friend, boyfriend, etc. do you feel you are then being treated as an equal, and can be content to allow for differing forms of behavior with their peers of the same sex?

Posted by: Gail at August 11, 2009 5:08 PMI David M --
I don't know the situation with regard to medical school admissions. But for me, the fact that you pulled the law school assertion out of your butt casts some doubt on your other statements.
=============
Gail-Pulled the law school assertion out of my butt? Why because that was the case for years and it may not be now. I will have to check because there is a possibility that was your individual situation but not the collective situation on a larger scale.
-"Casts some doubts on your other statements."
Gail I love your rationale. You may not be a liberal but you make statements like one. Meaning if you find one possibility that may apply to you as an individual you try to make a sweeping and broad generalization to discredit what someone is saying. This is known as throwing the baby out with the bath water. It also tells me that you don't want to believe what I stated and are looking for any justification. I assume you and choika are both women. Many women get upset when you tell them they have benefits men don't have and are a priviledged class. They don't want to believe it.
1. Women have more educational opportunities and more funds are spent on education for women.
2. Women are hired due to affirmative action at jobs they would not qualify for or are not as qualified as men. Police dept., fire dept. etc. Government.
3. Almost any place in the country a woman can decide to get out of a marraige take the kids, house etc from the man and get child support alimony etc...
Lets see that is 1. Education 2. Jobs. 3. Ability to take somneone's children, house etc. Yea. How much more is there?
I would recommend you read The War on Boys by Christina Hoff-Sommers and /or The War Against Men by Dr. Richard T. Hise.

I know you probably won't read them. It is contradictory to your beliefs, so you won't take the time, but they are factual.

I suspect from your statements that you just want to promote what you believe and aren't really interested in facts.

My perspective is going to be different from many American women, as I was raised OCONUS (outside the continental United States, for those who don't communicate in acronyms) in a family of mixed American/European heritage.

MiOnline-Thank you for writing that letter of protest. I wish more people would. I rarely watch TV, except with dearly beloved (I don't own one), and then it's always History Channel, Discovery, or National Geographic, so I don't see a lot of those ads. I am, however, writing a Strongly Worded Letter to the National Association of Realtors, because they are currently running some radio spots about buying houses that I think portray men as dim bulbs.

Robert-I will respond to you point by point to the best of my ability, starting with your last paragraph.

Society demands that we treat men and women equally

I would quibble with that. You must be very clear what you mean by 'society,' as that is a very nebulous term. I am, as an American, part of 'society,' but clearly I take issue with the concept of treating men and women the same. It would be more accurate to say that certain segments of society, and certain institutions by virtue of their policies, require that men and women be treated equally.

However, equal does not mean the same, as you pointed out. So does society demand that we treat men and women equally, or the same? I don't think the argument can be made that men and women are treated the same. Look at the media treatment of Sarah Palin (regardless of how you happen to feel about her). It was quite different than the treatment of her male peers. Certainly, it was the same in that politicians of any persuasion are either lauded or attacked by media organs, but the approach was rather different.

Sadly, yes, some of society demands that men and women be treated the same, and it's clearly not working out too well, as this comment thread indicates.

But here's how I approach it: as I stated early, it is my responsibility to create a productive workplace. To that end, the corporation I represent works within the law, as well as certain internally generated behavioral codes created with the express purpose of striving to ensure that every worker feels they are working in a safe, respectful, and professional environment.

We offer behavioral counseling upon hiring and at certain predetermined intervals to ensure that everyone is clear as to what our standards are. We do not, however, seek to regulate how our employees think or what they do in their private lives or interpersonal relationships.

Here is but a small excerpt of our policy: "Sexual harrassment does not include occasional compliments of an acceptable nature." I have in the past dealt with employees determined to take umbrage at the slightest provocation, and they were not always (but usually) women. Those employees either mitigated their behavior, or were released from our employ. I do not tolerate employees who deliberately try to set up their coworkers to be disciplined, just as I do not tolerate employees who behave in an obscene or disrespectful manner towards their mitarbeiters.

If you expect men not to behave like men towards other men when you are around...is this equality?

I expect the men I am around in a professional setting to behave in a professional manner towards other men and women. I do not care how they behave towards other men on their off hours or in their private life, providing it falls within the realm of legality (we do not employ felons of either gender).

The 'public mind,' inasmuch as it does not really exist in any legitimately quantifiable way, is as conflicted about this issue are the commenters here are. This thread is a microcosm of the 'public mind,' and if this proportionally microscopic number of people cannot reach a consensus, then clearly, the public mind is not any closer to doing so either.

I feel that the vast, vast majority of my coworkers treat me as an equal, be they male or female. I feel that my dearly beloved treats me as an equal as well. Part of that relies on displaying respect for my competencies, as I display respect for others' comptencies. He does not believe that certain things I am not good at or choose not to do are inherently tied to my being female. They are just certain things I am not good at and choose not to do (like moving heavy furniture. Hard to do when you weigh 115 pounds, be you male or female).

There are certain things I do better than him, like tax returns, being in an office environment 50 hours a week without going insane, or coordinating a 70-head luncheon. It's not because I have a vagina, it's because my strengths lie along more logistical, detail-oriented paths.

I do use the word 'offensive' to connote some vague, how-it-makes-you-feel standard. My 'offensive' is clearly codified in the employee behavioral regulations that we make available to everyone in order to mitigate any potential misunderstandings or misinterpretations. I also do not make decisions based on one person's 'feelings' about anything.

Entschuldigung.

Please to replace 'mitarbeiters' with coworkers.

David M-

I absolutely do not deny that women are a privileged class in some respects in America and other First World countries.

They are emphatically an unprivileged class in many other parts of the world.

But both men and women have certain privileges and disadvantages in America.

Furthermore, I do not think that looking at a biological fact as a privilege is a helpful point of view. It just is. Am I privileged because, hypothetically, I could end a pregnancy at certain points for a certain cost in certain states? (Hypothetically. I am in reality unable to have children...I suppose this 'privilege' is one I will have to miss out on.)
Well, yes. But are men 'privileged' because they don't have to undergo the very physically exhausting and often dangerous, sometimes life-threatening pregnancy/delivery process? Are they 'privileged' because they don't bear the physical costs of having children?

Am I 'privileged' because others, usually men, offer to help me when I'm trying to move something heavy on my own? Or are men more 'privileged' because they, on average, are more capable of moving heavier things farther than I can unaided?

Biological 'privileges' such as the one you mentioned are only 'privileges' insofar as one views them as privileges. One's 'privilege' is another's disadvantage. And I don't consider these 'privileges,' they are merely our biological reality.

"Jim-why not have a heart to heart with her, if this is an issue that really upsets you? Hopefully she will value your opinion. "

I'm gay, and I no longer live with a woman. When I was married, she didn't pay much attention to my opinion on some things htta t affected us both, but she had very little use for man-hating woman-pandering stuff, so that particular issue never came up.

"But if you are serious about not wanting to support corporations that promote this type of mindset, that would be a first step. That's why I don't buy Yoplait. That, and it's full of corn syrup."

Yes. Why buy shit like that when it takes about 20 minutes of effort to make real yoghurt at home anyway?

"It would be a refreshing change if people would stop blaming all women for the unfortunate and foolish byproducts of the more radical parts of the feminist movement. I wasn't even alive in the 60s and 70s, thank you, when Dworkin and her cohorts were shrieking that all men were rapists, they just didn't know it yet."

Choika, it would be refreshing if women would start denouncing all these foolish by-products of the more radical parts of the feminist movement, in the same way that white people, and it is mostly white people who do, tend to take the lead in denouncing White Supremacist statements and dismantling White Supremacist organizations. You are judged by the company you keep.

Jim-

That's exactly what I'm doing in this forum. I send letters to companies that produce advertisements that I think are derogatory towards men. I do not vote for politicians who want to implement anti-man legislation. I donate money to shelters that admit men or male children, not to women-only shelters.

At a more personal level, I don't choose to befriend women who have that perspective. I made it clear to one close friend of mine that I did not appreciate the anti-man comments she had gotten into the habit of making (a fairly recent development after nearly a decade of friendship and several disappointing relationships), and that perhaps her shoddy treatment by her significant others had more to do with her own poor choices and behavior than she wanted to admit, and furthermore, I wouldn't tolerate her treating either my dearly beloved or our mutual male friends in such a way.

I don't know how old you are, nor am I particularly interested in knowing, but I have found that my age peers are reacting more and more negatively towards the more radical aspects of feminism. (And please don't bring up the cohort on Feministing-that's a small and vocal subset, they are not indicative of the majority of women.) I forget what 'wave' of feminism we're now supposed to be on-third-wave, I think-but I am seeing a rather marked shift in perspective.

It is part of any reactionary movement towards excess. The changes the vanguard of the feminist movement agitated for in the 60s and early 70s were of a more concrete nature, in my opinion (remember, some colleges still would not confer degrees upon women until as late as 1958). But the pendulum swung waaaay too far, and now I think people are beginning to react to that. A woman in her 60s who was part of that first, radical movement, for example, is going to have a much different perspective than I do. And I think a lot of women who promoted that "genders are basically the same" crap changed their minds when they reproduced and realized, hey, my son and my daughter are not the same.

But I grew up in an area and nation where, for the most part, women were given equal opportunities as men in terms of education and advancement. So I don't have the background that would make me liable to find discrimination in every door-holding or hat-tipping, unlike others. I am hoping that eventually we will be able to have a society where people are afforded the opportunities that their competencies makes them fit for, and we are no longer interested in totting up every little way we think the other gender has it better.

Women do denounce these foolish by-products. Amy is one of them, as she pointed out, and she does it in a fairly public way that reaches a large audience.

I understand that people are judged by the company they keep, as you so helpfully pointed out. But I know what kind of company I keep, and it isn't to be found at a Take Back the Night rally at Vassar.

Amy-, re: the tire.

Very wise.

My dearly beloved takes care of all the car maintenance. He's been taking apart and putting together autos since he was a toddler, practically. I know how to change my own oil and do my own wiper blades, but that's about it. Why would I deprive him of the joy of doing something he loves, does well, and gets satisfaction from, just to turn it into a power trip? The happiness he gets from spending an afternoon tinkering with the engine or whatever (at least I think that's what that fairly squarish shiny thing under the hood is) is well worth any potential inconvenience to me.

How nice that I can leave my usual ranting to others! Suffice to say that some of the most vile and perverse feminists are men. So stop equating anti-feminism with misogyny, dammit!! (You know who you are ...)

Choika,

I enjoyed your thoughtful posts. Evidence that younger people are actively rejecting feminist ideology and the gender hatred it produces is refreshing indeed. I long for the day when someone who professes themselves a "feminist" is treated the way a professed Klan member should be treated.

There is an age difference. I'm 53, and so have been exposed to the hateful, corrosive impact of feminism my entire life (do you have any IDEA how offensive the "testosterone poisoning" comments are?). I have to actively control my outrage and anger at the institutionalized injustice and societal damage I have witnessed. I have to remind myself that I can't be angry with women as a whole, since women have been, in many ways, even more damaged by the delusions and lies of feminism than have men.

But, toxins accumulated over decades don't cleanse easily, I'm afraid. We're still in for a mighty rough go to end the gender war upon which those invested in feminism depend.

Amy, women WILL have to lead the charge to destroy the evil thing that feminism has become. I consider you a leader in the movement, and an important voice. Keep up the good work, darlin'!

Furthermore, I do not think that looking at a biological fact as a privilege is a helpful point of view. It just is.
=====================

Posted by: Choika at August 12, 2009 7:10 AM
It just is?
It wouldn't be just is, if the government didn't give favorable treatment to women.

Education,jobs, family courts are all because the government gives women favorable treatment despite it being unconstitutional.

14th amendmeant (ALL) emphasis mine All citizens shall be given equal protection under the law.

================================
Choika
Furthermore, I do not think that looking at a biological fact as a privilege is a helpful point of view.

David M.-I am refuting what was originally said by Bob Herbert that "American culture is anti-woman."
Nothing could be further from the truth. American culture is not ant-woman.

Choika-Biological 'privileges' such as the one you mentioned are only 'privileges' insofar as one views them as privileges. One's 'privilege' is another's disadvantage. And I don't consider these 'privileges,' they are merely our biological reality.

David M.-Mentioning Education,jobs, family courts, criminal courts and military and government jobs are not "biologial realities." They are government preferences.

"That's exactly what I'm doing in this forum. I send letters to companies that produce advertisements that I think are derogatory towards men."

Yes you are, Choika, and bless you for it. And as you point out, there are women doing this a lot, and bless them for it. It is a function of sexism, but oftentimes women's views on this carry more weight. It may be sexist, but it works.

"But I know what kind of company I keep, and it isn't to be found at a Take Back the Night rally at Vassar."

You have made that very clear. Thank yu for your thoughtful approach and for your civilized tone. i hope you are the wave of the future.

David M-

I feel that I have expressed myself as clearly as possible without resorting to my muttersprache, and at this point I think you are deliberately misunderstanding me. That earlier post was dealing exclusively with the concept of biological factors being viewed as 'privileges.' I am not 'privileged' in that I can (theoretically, we will never know) lactate any more than you are 'privileged' to have more upper body strength and greater respiratory capacity than I have.

I have already addressed the list of what you view as 'privileges' accorded to women in America, although I feel that many of those 'privileges' are not privileges at all. Preferential treatment of the court is not a privilege so much as it is a horrible, shameful abuse of our legal system, and one that we must agitate to rectify. But our legal system lets many down, from those who need a restraining order enforced to those who are unfairly on the sex offender roles (rolls?) (an excellent article about this in the most recent issue of The Economist, for anyone who is interested, I recommend).

Government preferences are not rights. They are the result of poorly crafted and unsound policy decisions. You, as a voter and American citizen (and I assume you are, please to correct if you are not) may vote, write, campaign, and otherwise agitate to change them, as I do. That is what I can as a citizen do.

American laws can be changed, but not without a lot of struggle and effort on our part-just as the earliest feminists struggled to overturn laws that prohibited women from voting or owning their own property (and incidentally, America was on the forefront of this effort! Many laws in Europe, such as the property law and voting laws, were not overturned until after American laws were, something that American feminists who like to talk about how 'enlightened' Europeans are often forget).

Jim-

Thank you for your respectful and thoughtful response. I am sorry that you are to be feeling so bitter about what has happened in this country. I hope that you now are understanding that not every woman feels this way. We are only products of our time and our history, they inform our weltanschauung, and this is true for everyone.

I do hopefully believe that many women of my age do not feel the way the feminists of the 60s and 70s do. I do not believe men are inherently evil. I think the characteristics that make men special and different from me are important and something to be embraced (celebrated? I am not sure of the word). I think that if we try to force the genders to be like one another, we will miss what makes them so special to the other.

But the first step towards this for me and for others is to always scrutinize our behavior towards others of any gender, and always to treat with civility and courtesy. The shift in the thinking must come later. What is needed now is a truly nondiscriminatory society, in every respect.

Weltanschauung- to be replaced with world view or perspective.

It is harder for me to move between the languages when I am tired or have been using the other more.

When I say "Society" I mean exactly that, the nation at large, it is canon law that sex shall not be a valid form of discrimination. This of course applies to both men & women. (With the obvious exception of performance art such as film which calls for specific genders)

Beyond that, the term "equality" has been "equated" with the word "Same". Should it be? I'd agree with you, it shouldn't. But should & real world application, those two often clash.

Sarah Palin's treatment was different from her male peers only in the commentary made by her female detractors. Otherwise: Bush done up as a monkey, Clinton accused of being a sex offender, Perot was even lampooned as a quitter in the tiny toons t.v. show during his day in the sun. Palin was treated exactly as every other politico out there...except that the misoginistic commentary came predominently from her own gender. True the approach differed, but when it comes to how women treat other women...that is a whole seperate issue all together.

I'd also agree with you, "SAME" isn't working to well for the most part.

I don't work in the corporate world any longer, and when I did it was very short term, I'm a soldier by trade, and have been for over a decade now. We don't have quite the same "behavioral codes" sotospeak, though we do have some which are similar, if more flexible & open to interpretation. And we do have regular training & refresher training on issues such as sexual harassment, assault, and other matters pertaining to our on and off duty interactions.

As in your experience, the "overly sensitive" amongst us are almost universally female (of the male segment interestingly enough, it is almost universally religious persons, but that again is a seperate issue), by and large we are problem free, at least in my unit. Most of the female soldiers are just one of the guys, if less prone to more physical horsing around. However I have been in positions where male soldiers were stuck walking on egg shells fearing for their careers because of 1 or 2 female soldiers quick to be offended and file complaints. Investigative climates, if you've never been in them, well they're very very unpleasant.

Smart move not employing felons. But beyond that, men relate to other men verbally in ways that women do not, these traits do not end when entering an office door, we carry our natures with us both good and bad. There was a brief flareup years ago over sexual harassment, because some male sales people were taking potential clients to strip clubs to talk business and to close deals. It was a very effective business practice, however some female employees of said companies filed suit for sexual harassment, not because of what was discussed at the office, not because of anything said or done to them personally, but because they considered that practice itself to be a form of harassment. Interestingly, several women interviewed said that they had adopted the same practice as their male counterparts, with similar success, and had no problem with it. The men in question chose an activity that promoted swift bonding and very smooth sales negotiations, yet this effective method was deemed unprofessional harassment. How do you percieve it, I am curious.

A discussion of the "public mind" is by its very nature generalized, but when we speak of very generalized concepts, I think it can be done with some confidence. Equality vs. sameness is a long standing debate. I'm not opposed to equality, but like you I don't believe that equal is the same as identical. Yet how else may it be presented in legal language to ensure equal treatment? The end result has been wildly various from place to place subculture to subculture, from military to civilian to public to private behavior.

My one trouble with the concept of offensive...is the idea that we somehow have a right to not be offended. One cannot have liberty of thought nor speech and expect to never be offended. Indeed the very concept of free speech exists to protect speech someone else may deem offensive. That said, a private enterprise may set its own policies for hiring, firing, and speech.

I understand that your perspective as a former Soldat is different from mine.

I am the child of two soldiers. Both of my parents served, although in different places. In my current role, I work with a corporation that has many dealings with soldiers from different countries, and many of our staff are former military members.

Although we are a private enterprise, there is a lot of bleedover from the military community. Personally, I am most comfortable with those in or former military, because it is a part of my upbringing, and I have found that former military members make exemplary employees, as they can most often be counted upon to be responsible, dependable, and trustworthy.

I think to be offended is a very useful thing. Why? Because when you are offended, you must examine why you have been offended, and often I have found this is most revealing. It is not enough to simply say, I am offended! Why you are offended will often tell you more about what you think and why, and where it comes from.

This question about the strip clubs is interesting. I have heard about this before, but in what I have read, it was a common practice not only to 'close sales' but for employees to 'bond' afterhours. If I am remembering correctly, this was a common practice of large law firms?

Here is my perspective: what an employee does on their own, or with other employees afterhours, is not my concern insofar as they do not breach our employee conduct regulations in their activities (zB, to bring a company to car to this place would be a violation as it is not for private use, or to be used by anyone who has had alcohol).

However, when the employee is bringing sales clients to this place on company business, the client is not acting as a private entity but as a representative of this company. How the company chooses to deal with this issue is up the company (at this point, speaking in terms of pre-litigation, just company policy).

When we are negotiating with businessmen from Russia or the former Eastern sector, it is quite common practice for the actual closing of the deal to occur afterhours in a bar or club. That is considered acceptable, and for a business to refuse to do so would be seen as untrustworthy or suspicious. They are often more comfortable negotiating with male employees and often assume that when a female and male employee are meeting with them together, the female is always the subordinate. I do not care about their perception, I care about a favorable outcome.

I do think I understand the basis for the lawsuits you have mentioned. I do not think these women, when they were hired, expected to have to enter a sexualized environment in order to do business. It is an unsound business practice to have 'unwritten' or 'understood' rules that are not part of the written policy. Why? Because it opens the corporation up for litigation. If it was company policy to have negotiations in a strip club, fine. Make it the official policy.

Yes, we 'carry our natures with us,' as you say. But I am not interested in your nature. I am not interested in our employees' nature. That is their business. My business is providing guidance so that we remain within the bounds of legality and our official policies. If behaving in accordance with your 'nature' causes you to break those guidelines, that is when we have an issue.

As to 'relating to each other verbally' in a different way, I think you are intelligent enough to understand when the behavior is inappropriate, and to understand that what is appropriate between friends in a bar afterhours is the not the same as what is appropriate when you are acting as a company representative.

Posted by: Choika at August 12, 2009 6:55 PM

"and at this point I think you are deliberately misunderstanding me."
====================================
David M. No. You went off on a tangent and tried to apply it to what I was saying.
See below.
David M.-I am refuting what was originally said by Bob Herbert that "American culture is anti-woman."
Nothing could be further from the truth. American culture is not ant-woman.

You were talking about the things you consider to be privileges accorded to women and not men in America, and how that is enough evidence for you to believe that American culture is not anti-woman (which I agree with, in a systemic context).

I was talking about how the idea of a privilege is often very subjective. I do not see that as a tangent, I think it is related.

If you are determined to believe that women are privileged above men all the time, in every way, in American civil and legal society, there is no way I can persuade you otherwise, and furthermore I am not interested in trying to do so.

I have found that many people find it very useful to think of all the ways that bad or unfortunate things that happen to them, or failings on their part, are not their fault, but the result of an inherently unfair system. That conveniently excuses them from having to take any corrective actions.

If the system is inherently unfair, work to change it. Or, in extreme cases, go outside of it.

I was talking about how the idea of a privilege is often very subjective. I do not see that as a tangent, I think it is related.

If you are determined to believe that women are privileged above men all the time, in every way, in American civil and legal society, there is no way I can persuade you otherwise, and furthermore I am not interested in trying to do so.
===================================
WOW!!! Way to change my talking point. I was speaking in generalities and you are "priviledged above men all the time."
No where did I ever say "all the time" but thanks for the straw man arguement.

As far as you saying priviledge is subjective, your arguement is subjective and I was speaking in generalities as applied to American society, and named my examples.