NY Times: The Men Feminists Left Behind

Submitted by mens_issues on Sun, 2016-11-06 17:51

Article here. The latest anti-male feminist rant from the NY Times. Condescending articles like these that demean men and further the antagonistic relationship between the sexes are what alienated me from the MSM many years ago. Excerpt:

'On Nov. 8, Americans may elect our first female president. While many of us are exhilarated at the idea of this feminist victory, the toll we’ve paid for coming so close to that historic barrier has been the most graphically sexist election in living memory.

What this campaign has shown us is that while feminism has transformed American culture, our politics and the lives of women, men haven’t evolved nearly as rapidly. Women changed. Too many men didn’t. What happens next?

For all of American history, white men have been both the dominant group and the default one: It was mostly white men in charge, and it was white male experiences and norms against which all others found themselves contrasted and defined. When Hillary Clinton started at Yale Law School in 1969, there was only one woman in the United States Senate. It was legal for a man to rape his wife, but abortion was mostly outlawed. Mrs. Clinton graduated as one of just 27 women in a class of 235, after being explicitly told that if accepted into law school, she would take the rightful place of a man.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

It's a rapidly-dying publication but as it dies it will not change its vile ways because it cast its lot with The Vile Ones decades ago and will not change.

Even as its decision leads it to its demise...

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2016-11-06 23:46

In particular, the comment in the article about it once being legal for a man to rape his wife shows a very pessimistic and hostile attitude toward men. They make men sound like undesirable brutes that can't control their base desires and that women have been terrorized by men in America throughout it's history. While I'm sure there have been a small proportion of bad apples among men all along, surely the decent and productive men have strived to be protectors and providers according to societal expectations.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by mens_issues on Mon, 2016-11-07 00:12

I found one paragraph I want to reprint:

"For women, greater educational achievements, a lifetime in the work force and delayed marriage and childbearing mean our lives are more expansive and outward-looking than ever before. Working-class white men, though, have seen many of their connections to society severed — unions decimated, jobs lost, families split apart or never formed at all — decreasing their social status and leaving them increasingly isolated."

This paragraph is reasonably accurate: women have benefited from feminist changes while men have lost their jobs and families. Men got nothing out of the new feminist utopia and lost everything they did have.

She then goes on to write, " If the white men who feel ignored, disrespected and lost want to see their lives improve, they should take a cue from the great feminist strides women have made and start to embrace that progress."

So men are supposed to embrace losing their families and their jobs and being given nothing in return?

Is she completely batty? Or completely blind? I suspect both.

But she's convinced me to do one thing: vote for Trump.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Mon, 2016-11-07 21:30