Finding Mr. Right

@ Mr Knight

I agree wholeheartedly, that’s why I referred to it as biologically sympathetic. Personally I would be happy to leave the mother in the hospital after birth. I envision something different in my recipe. But I also believe that a marital home should go to the children and the father and mother should be the ones to pack their bags and move around, the children should not.
The family court needs to move away from an adversarial system regarding children and be re-educated. That story must be told by the fathers and children and qualified as valid by early childhood development specialists. We can no longer allow a disposable parent. The impact personally, familial, and social have become apparent and obvious. When we justify a socialization strategy for children that includes early childcare or early education before introducing adequate imprinting from the father; we are placing them in a complex social setting with only half an identity.

Equally, I agree with you regarding imprinting, but there are other implications to imprinting.

I also understand what you are saying in the context of the current family court system.

IT NEEDS TO CHANGE!!!!

The family court needs to be reshaped into a child welfare tribunal.
The children need to be the winners in every circumstance of separation. Those rights need to supersede the transience of marriage and adult relationship.

@ Keith:

Postponing primary caregiver status for fathers until the children’s second birthday = two years too late.

The ‘family’ courts will inevitably see it that way.

So will each child on several levels: two years of imprinting based upon definitive dependency doesn’t get erased ever.

Keith and Mr. Knight;

Do you know when all this “feminism” ends? It ends when we American males bypass the American woman for Third World women. Those women treat men like kings. In many cases, divorce is as alien in their cultures as cable TV. When American women see the divorce rate plummet because more American men are marrying Filipinas, Vietnamese, central Africans and others, the women will change or become old maids.

@ Mr Knight

Yes I think I understand, your point regarding the IRev.
First of all I disagree that this is a long standing model, but rather a recently fabricated model, that represents a distortion as it is extended back through time.

It is typical of feminists to look in the well of history to see their reflection. Often that is as deep as they go. When you choose to go deeper you discover the water becomes colder, harder and more difficult to swallow. Its called context.

This model is taken and interpreted from the entitled class, the rich. For the worker class such as myself, the model was radically different. Men women and children were working during industrialization, most children were being raised by siblings and then off to work often as early as 6-7-8 years of age.
But again Fems like to emulate the entitled class along with the expectation of privilege. What you refer to is a myth and a lie in a demographic context. en.wikipedia.org/wikindustrial_Revolution#Child_labourAmerica 1900 1.7 million children under the age of 15 employed in the workforce.

Men are divided from their children by state enforced chivalry, which is every reason to END CHIVALRY COMPLETELY. Women enjoyed “affirmative action” in the workplace, in the seventies they even went on strike in the home. It’s time that men stopped extending good will. The new mantra for men should be you want something pay for it and chivalry is at time and a half.

Women are not upset with men for not being there, they are upset that they can and are there now. This erodes their base of available choices.

I guess it would be equally reasonable to suggest that daddy left home to go to war and die. So when we kick him out this time we should just kill him.

Wow. I have never seen so many examples of feminist dissimulation at one time.

First the predictable shaming language:

“…which then and makes me think that I am reading the thoughts of individuals who can’t see beyond the personal experiences that closed their minds to the experiences of the whole.”

Translation: “You’re just bitter!”

Then, the classic PHMT (Patriarchy Hurts Men TOO!) argument:

“Yes, I can see where there are double-standards and where there are ways that men have been oppressed by the same patriarchal system that feminists have worked against for so long.”

Then, a dash of complete denial of biological realities:

“Gender identity in itself has been an oppression for all humans, and its time we all start recognizing how it holds us all back (a recognition I see the beginnings of here).”

So what’s the alternative? A sexless hivemind Borg Collective? Maybe we could make ourselves into Disney cartoon characters, they have no genitalia and are often androgynous in their mannerisms,yes I’m sure that’s the answer! Are you listening to yourself at all?

Maybe it’s time for you to recognize that other people being conscious of their sex in NO WAY holds you back and is in fact the default state of humanity.

“Again, to use a personal example, I went through my period of man-hating as I learned about all of the abuses of the past that occurred against women in patriarchal societies.”

Folk,I rest my case. This is all I needed to hear. Once a misandrist, always a misandrist. This thing (It has already declared gender to be harmful so I will refer to it how it wants to be called) has nothing to offer anyone interested in genuine equality between the sexes, it will bullshit around ad infinitum with its crap about “destructive gender identities” (whatever the hell that means) until the cows come home but it won’t demand reproductive rights for men or mandatory selective service for women.

Case closed.

I know this is lengthy, but I wanted to be very clear since my response is so different than the rest.

I think that Pelle’s article has some thought-provoking points about our need to rethink certain interpretations of second-wave feminist philosophies. However, I am deeply disturbed by the overgeneralizations within the article as well as in many of the responding posts.

First, I would like to respond to Pelle’s line: “The “you-go-girl” culture has also led to double standards between the sexes.”

While the way this culture is described is a form of double-standard, that double-standard existed long before feminism came along, and women received the brunt of the standard—along with other minorities (which includes male minorities, those who had majority power exerted over them with little recourse for their own self-definition and regulation).

With regard to the shame many men now feel because of a female-dominance double-standard, I know a lot about that from my own experiences with a male-dominance double-standard that made me, and many other women in the present and past, feel ashamed to be a woman, that made womanhood synonymous with being oppressed, being weak, being irrational (or INSANE…which is, I suppose, a stereotype that women still haven’t overcome if we read irlandes post accurately…men have been coming up with similar diagnoses for centuries, only they used different terms, like hysteria. On one hand, folks could respond to this by thinking, “well, if it has been proven for so long, then it must be right.” On the other hand, one could say that these studies have certain culturally biased foundations that tend to predict the outcome before the study even begins, like a clinical self-fulfilling prophecy. On a third hand, we could recognize that calling half of the American population crazy does not encourage much good will from that half to listen to what you have to say and be willing to work with you).

To blame the feminists, carte blanche, is like blaming men as a gender for the problems that led up to the feminist movement—such an abstract scapegoat offers nothing useful. It only encourages factional thinking, us against them, and it ignores what both (feminists and men) have accomplished and it makes us think in terms of groups instead of people.

What continually surprises, and pains, me when I read articles about the problems with feminism or the state of male/female relationships today is not the anger. As Gandhi pointed out, anger is a valid emotion that often inspires us to get involved and work for change (much like the anger that led me to respond to this post). My concern was for the lack of sympathy and the extreme over-simplification that makes the tone of people’s posts here sound bitter, as if they responded purely emotionally, without thinking the complexities of the problem through.

To be more specific, when an entire group of women—American women—is denigrated as being unfit for marriage or unable to grasp reality, the unqualified and unquestioned hyperbole makes the statement entirely sentimental and personal, which then and makes me think that I am reading the thoughts of individuals who can’t see beyond the personal experiences that closed their minds to the experiences of the whole.

I can get personal, if that helps. Like Ray, my dating experiences haven’t been ideal. I have been cheated on, lied to, abandoned, emotionally abused—by both men and women. These were people from different ethnicities and backgrounds, not all American. I have also witnessed myriad problems between friends and their lovers over the years. Does that mean that all men and women are cheats, liars, and innately cruel? Not at all. Does that mean that these experiences stand as representative of American dating? Again, no, because there can actually be no single standard—we are all so different. If I had taken my past experiences as par for the course, I would have given up dating altogether. But I didn’t, and I found a partner who is my “catch,” who is by no means perfect, but whom I love and respect enough to work through differences, who feels the same about me. And he calls himself a feminist.

My point is not that we should not talk about the problems in feminism—addressing problems is how we learn to improve our approach and become more effective in our efforts to eradicate continued inequality and disparity (for all marginalized groups, ANYONE—male or female—who is denied choice and freedom because of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, class, or status). And it is unfair to think that feminism should have been created perfect and worked perfectly from the start because that is not how movements work. Movements grow and learn from experience and mistakes just like the people who make up the movements. It should not be abandoned or devalued because of unforeseen complications or unintended interpretations.

Instead, we should review the basic premise of the movement. The women’s movement was not about engendering negativity and excluding people but rather about including more people in the workings of a democratic society that also was not, and is not, perfect the way it was first established (being only for the wealthy, white male landowners whose experiences probably don’t align with many of our current backgrounds). In and of itself, feminism had a very positive agenda. If we agree with this, then we should be reasonable in our critiques and instead of trying to assuage personal wounds, we can have constructive conversations that might help us figure out WHY so many women became angry with men, why so many women might have responded so readily to being put on a pedestal.

I bet we would find that the immature, narcissistic offshoots of second-wave feminism were in themselves a hyperbolic response, based on a lot of unexplored emotions and pain that came with being treated as second-class citizens for so long. Many women responded with anger and never got past that, which is something many of us on this board might relate to. Again, to use a personal example, I went through my period of man-hating as I learned about all of the abuses of the past that occurred against women in patriarchal societies. However, that was only during the very cursory beginnings of my studies, and a lot of it was linked to my own negative experiences with men. Once I learned more, and once I began to extract the humanity of men from the injustices of patriarchy, I also began to see how unjust some aspects of second-wave feminist responses to an unjust system were.

Yes, I can see where there are double-standards and where there are ways that men have been oppressed by the same patriarchal system that feminists have worked against for so long. There are many facets of the human experience that have been deemed unmanly for men that many men now are only just beginning to explore, and I think those men, as well as society as a whole, benefits from this. Gender identity in itself has been an oppression for all humans, and its time we all start recognizing how it holds us all back (a recognition I see the beginnings of here). I also see that there are many more women who recognize that now (check out some of the feminist blogs and websites out there, in a random search, and you may be surprised by the similarities between your concerns about male-exclusive feminism).

To blame indiscriminately is to alienate and divide. How many women reading this article or the posts below it would be inspired to make a change? Even women with very different perspectives, those who may also be bothered or outraged by the princess/queen/diva or female-domination interpretations of feminism—like myself—become defensive and angry because we are, technically, women, and our group has not received any consideration. I imagine many men—particularly men responding here—can relate to this defensiveness because they have suffered the same alienation. As posts here indicate, this feeling is not conducive to productive discussion (since venting, while cathartic, doesn’t provide much room for dialogue).

Could I offer my recommendation, then? Instead of continuing the male vs. female, feminist vs. masculinist competition that tends to inform most of these “critiques,” why not try something more compassionate? Something more productive, like making an effort not to blame but to understand, and then using that understanding as the basis for cooperative change, one where men and women accept the anger and fear on both sides but get beyond it to see that we are at a brink of a new kind of ism, maybe a humanism that seeks justice for all marginalized people, one that encourages acceptance of differences, one that embraces inclusion rather than exclusion.

This new ism could never come about without feminism, so feminism still has its place because it is an ism that encouraged critiques of the status quo and paved the way for discussions about all forms of oppressions. After all, many men have been oppressed in some way by the inequalities that have long defined Western society, and they were often well aware of class and race based oppression, but few were aware of the sex-and-gender based oppressions that feminism brought to light. Feminism gave them a new vocabulary and brought to light new possibilities for embracing a fuller individuality that make conversations like this possible. So, let’s keep working for improvement, but let’s try to do it with more respect and patience.

@ Tara: I wonder if it might have been productive for the couple and the princess wedding debacle if she was in counseling to find out why it was so important to have such a big wedding, why it was so important to her life? I know there are some major issues there that are unresolved.

@ pj1: I am interested in your point about NOW and parenting. Where did you learn about how they are against “true shared parenting”?

@ Belinda: thanks for making that distinction about the Alabama shooter

@Pelle, Paul and Dr. Tara

As you three all touch on, and I often sound like a broken record on this, options make the world go round. Even a woman with sincere intentions to be a good wife prior to marriage, who may even pass a lie detector test to that fact, will be swayed in her demeanor by the options afforded her by law.

Just as the financial incentives behind illegitimacy and paternity fraud have resulted in that behavior skyrocketing, anyone that thinks that having the full force of the government as a weapon and source of security doesn’t significantly contribute to a woman’s intolerance in marriage and the high divorce rate is a fool.

When I’ve supervised employees who married someone wealthy, their demeanor changed almost instantly. They didn’t need the job to keep their lifestyle, so they quit caring about it. Same concept when a woman no longer needs to be a wife to receive the benefits of having a husband.

Sincerest thanks to all of you for the great work you do.

By the way, though almost all rational men admit there are good women in the US, the problem is most of us men simply can’t tell the difference until it is too late. Which is why more men every year decide to avoid marriage.

As a side-note, my Mexican wife and I have been married almost 35 years, so no one uses the standard shaming language for my beliefs.

So are feminist ideas, studies and actions creating mental illness in a large portion of the female population?

I mean that’s kind of what it looks like all the sudden.

The majority of single women … said that getting 80 per cent of what they wanted in a mate would be ’settling.’ The majority of single men said finding a woman with 80 per cent of what they wanted would be ‘a catch.’

Worse yet, there are many women who “settle” for Mr 80% who then go on to punish and demean him for not living up to all of her often grossly unrealistic expectations. Typically, when a person has the mindset that they settled for “second” or “third” best, they don’t value the other person and give themselves license to treat the other person deplorably—i.e., “You’re lucky to have me, so put up with my sh!t.”

I’ve often wondered how many of these women’s first choices were the “unattainable man”—i.e., men who saw through them and didn’t allow themselves to be manipulated or guilted into marriage and who would never tolerate the nonsense and abuse they dispense toward the man who actually made a commitment to them. I also wonder how many Mr Second Bests financially support their wives. “Yes, he pays for everything, but I settled.” What a scam.

I recently counseled a man whose fiancee was browbeating him into spending more on a wedding than he or she can afford (and she expects him to also buy a home after they’re married). He contacted me after she started threatening to call off the wedding if he wasn’t willing to go into debt so she could have her “special day.”

First, I explained the difference between pre-marriage jitters and unmitigated greed and an utter lack of concern for his financial stability and well-being. We talked through how this kind of behavior she’s displaying before he’s legally bound to her will play out in married life and if they should later divorce.

I suggested the next time she made one of her threats to call off the wedding if he didn’t pony up more cash to say:

You’re right. You deserve to have the wedding of your dreams and someone who can afford to give it to you. I can’t and, although it will be painful for me, I don’t want to stand in the way of your happiness.

Her response: some fast and furious back pedaling and then more abuse—How dare you threaten me! Um, she was the one making the threats. You should be ashamed of yourself. I’ve already sent out 300 invitations. What do you expect me to tell our friends and family?! Do you know how lucky you are that I agreed to marry you?!

Long story short: We continued to work together and he realized that a woman who truly loves you doesn’t care about how many food stations you have or elaborate floral arrangements nor is she willing to bankrupt you so she can be fairy pricess for a day—or in my client’s case a 3-day wedding celebration as if she were Victoria Beckham.

Six weeks later, my client called off the wedding. His ex vilified him to anyone who would listen—the usual narcissistic smear campaign. His friends and family know the true story. Additionally, after he broke off the engagement, several friends and family members finally spoke up and said they didn’t like his former fiancee and had some real concerns about her—particularly about how she treated him. He’s moved on and is dating a seemingly very nice woman now and his ex is still bearing a grudge and posting photos of herself and her new victim who “knows how to treat a woman” on her Facebook wall. Presumably, so that mutual firends will report back to my client how happy she is and what a cad he is.

She was jilted, but at least she didn’t have to “settle.”

The “I can have it all princess delusion” is the standard message in the MSM…

The reality is that today’s delusional queens will age, get replaced in the corporate world and in the dating/marriage world by younger women. You can only have it all for so long. I suspect this is why feminist’s (NOW) appose true shared parenting and hold men to the highest standard of accountability as there has to be a safety net for the high flying sexist queens in our contemporary western culture.

Have it all, then get knocked up and blame the guy for everything in her life when she becomes tired of maintaining a 2 way relationship.

Amy Bishop’s undergrad degree is from Northeastern, where her father taught, so I doubt that any “hotbed of radical feminism” really did much to her. She’s mentally ill, not liberated.

Thank you Pele, for your clearly articulated article!

I agree wholeheartedly. I wonder whether some of the serious female violence that we are seeing is in fact a reflection of this “I deserve it all” and “I’m a queen, and you must treat me like one” attitude?

Take the recent case of a Harvard Univ trained professor called Amy Bishop. Apparently in response to hearing that she was not going to get tenure at the Univ of Alabama, she shot a bunch of faculty members. Three were killed and several more wounded. Since Harvard is such a hotbed of radical feminism (remember the dismissal of embattled Harvard Univ President Larry Summers because he dared to admit publicly that men were better at certain things?), perhaps she picked up this same attitude, the one you discuss in your article, while at Harvard? Is this the new twisted female that feminism has brought us? Not only an immature entitled narcissist, but one who demands to have her own way using violence?

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/12/alabama-shooting012.html