On November 26, an article on the Fox News website raised an interesting – and, if I’m being perfectly honest, an unnecessary and nonsensical – question: is there a war on men?
Suzanne Venker claims that there is; and, furthermore, that the war was started by women. Venker goes on to say that men are playing second fiddle in society more and more as women are on the rise. She claims that all the good (otherwise known as “marriageable”) men are being scared away by this new breed of woman that has entered our society as a result of the twentieth century feminist movements. These new and improved women are taking their place alongside men in the workforce as well as in college, and are actually earning more college degrees than are their male counterparts.
Well, as a man, I feel I should behave in the way that Venker thinks all American men are behaving now, and say that I am frightened by these “angry” and “unknowingly defensive” women. I mean, how could I not be? They’ve all apparently been raised to think of me as the enemy.
My only real question is, how didn’t we see this sooner? I don’t know, but thankfully Venker is on the case. She makes it easy to understand when, in a brilliant display of sexism, she so eloquently and profoundly simplifies women’s thinking into: “women good/men bad.” And to top off her argument, which is stellar by any kindergartener’s standards, she brings in some hard data. The data state that since 1997, the percentage of women who give marriage top priority has risen from 28% to 37% while the number of men who say marriage is a priority has fallen from 35% to 29%. Clearly, this is compelling evidence that drives Venker’s point home in a way the only she, in her superior ways of thinking, can identify. In addition to that, she touts her experience as a writer on the maybe-kind-of-a-little-bit-related topic of family and pop culture.
Now, I don’t want to sound too picky here, but I have one complaint: this is ridiculous. And I really don’t even need to tell anyone here at Conn that. Here, we have an amazing, gender-neutral and all-inclusive community that puts Venker’s idea to shame. There is no discrimination or reverse discrimination here, and as Camels we should all be proud of that fact. There’s no artificial conflict here. Conn is a vision of what the future will bring, and it’s not some wasteland fraught with gender conflict and a loss of male identity. Suzanne Venker is living in the past.
Well, Suzanne, welcome to the twenty-first century. We do things a bit differently around here. We don’t put down a class that’s rising from a position of social disadvantage and obscurity. We can accept the fact that maybe women just tend to want to get married more than men now, and it’s not a Social Darwinist uprising that’s causing this shift in feelings. Men are not “retreating from marriage” because of anything that women did. And furthermore, we can accept that just because women are doctors and lawyers and politicians and soldiers now, that does not mean they’ve stopped being women.
There is no “feminine nature” that women should “surrender” themselves to, and the same goes for men with respect to masculinity. The only things that we should be surrendering ourselves to are our desires and ambitions, whatever they may be. We live in a time when people have more opportunity and freedom to pursue what they want than ever before, and that is something that should be cherished, not criticized. After all, aren’t those the principles that our country was founded on? These principles are not about knowing our place; it’s about reaching for something more.
To claim that men have “nowhere to go” today is utter ignorance and is exactly the kind of talk that holds us back. It is most certainly not conducive to the welfare and forward progress of society.
I contend that we are better off now that women have a more prominent role. A more diverse society has access to more perspectives, ideas and talents. There is absolutely no reason to claim that women should return to the “pedestal” they had before the feminists came around (you know, the one in the kitchen) so the men can return to theirs. There are no pedestals; there are no scripted roles. No one has the right to tell us who to be other than ourselves.
And as for those claims that women are brought up to see men as foes, that is the media’s fault. For the most part, it isn’t the good men that get the attention of the press. The men involved in crimes and scandals are the ones we hear most about, and I can promise you that those men are in the minority. So if we’re bothered by some perceived bad reputation attached to men, we shouldn’t be taking it up with women; it’s got nothing to do with them. Also, let’s not forget that it was men who made it so difficult for women to rise in the first place, trapping them in binders and whatnot.
Lastly, if you are a man who agrees with what Venker is saying, then my advice for you is as follows: get it together. Stop whining and act like an adult. If you didn’t get that job you wanted because some woman worked harder for it than you did, I say tough luck. Leave, work hard, come back and then try again. Again, I stress the instruction “work hard.” That’s what men should do and that’s what women should do, and everyone should have the same opportunities to do it. •
Simply put, I found this article needlessly snarky and condescending.
Perhaps you should look into paternity fraud and how N.O.W lobbys against mandatory paternity tests trapping men whose wives cheated on them and force them to pay for a kid that isn’t theirs. Yes, women created that! Men loose their shot at jobs thanks to affirmative action. It is legal discrimination and completely favors women even when they are less qualified. It sounds like you need to get the facts instead of selling emotion.
Your argument sounds like an excuse for not being able to get a job.
You should see all of the thirty-something women I know that are now desperate for a guy, and the men have zero interest in committing to them. They point out that marriage has become a raw deal for them, and they are simply saying no to a bad deal. These are the unintended consequences of feminism.
College feels like a cozy, everyone is happy little ideal world, but the real world shows that current PC policies are backfiring badly — mostly on us women.
Perhaps it’s time for us to stop spitting on men, and wondering why they are staying away.
Ivanka — I am a 31 year old man who, at age 28, met a 19 year-old woman (a sophomore at a good college) who did not share the insane feminist ideology I was exposed to a decade ago at another Connecticut liberal arts school (I’m sure you can guess which one). We are getting married soon. I could not be happier. I would never have considered a woman like the ones I knew in college. Regards
Feminism does not mean that women are better than men or that women think they should be more important. For many women, feminism means being able to be friends with your boyfriend, getting the same pay for the same job and being able to choose if you want to be a mother or work on your career. It’s giving us the same privileges you have as men. No hatred. Also, observer, you’re fiance is 22. Hardly a woman. Grow up.
Whoever wrote this article is a fucking fruitcake.
Well, B, I may be a fruitcake but at least I’m enough of a man to use my own name when I speak my mind.
Why did you assume that B is a man? And do you not see the irony in assigning a “manly” quality to placing one’s name alongside one’s opinions?
B: You do know what a fruitcake is, right? It is a type of cake with fruit in it. Also, it is a slang term for a coward. B, seeing as you are hiding behind the name ‘B’ and leaving no reason for your attack on the author, I think it is safe to say that you are the fruitcake. With nuts, man. Lot’s of nuts.