"Feminism has turned men into second-class citizens"

"entitlement"... she uses that word to say that by being the workhorse for women that that is something men were "entitled" to? I recall Esther Vilar's "The Manipulated Man", chapter one entitled "The Slave's Happiness". I guess the author if this essay seems to think that things would be so much better if men just felt they KNEW that the right place for them was providing for women and children, proudly and sternly marching daily to factory, farm, and office, ALL FOR WOMAN!!!

She is yet another wolf in wolf's clothing.

The question of the place of men in society is not about so much what men feel, but whether our rights, opinions, and personhoods are respected by both sexes. At this stage, they are not. And the author is one reason why. She has the right idea, to write about men in society, but the old-fashioned viewpoint of how to start the examination is more of the same old same old.

The article is nothing more than the basic "Look what women were able to do by themselves!" chest beating by the feminazi gestapo.

In all reality women as a group have done nothing by themselves. Nearly everything women have today is a result of the so-called "evil patriarchy(i.e. Men)." I also saw how it keeps claiming that a man's only purpose in life is to serve a woman. No that is not men's "role in life", men can do or be whatever they want.

Society victimizes and socializes men into the role of providers and protectors. If he does not aquiesce to a matriarchal society pressuring him into being a slave he is shamed and punished to no end. The truth is this article is not for men, it's more of a sneaky way for women to continue posing for the camera and accept the awards women keep giving each other for screwing sh** up for the past 40 years.

You have the typical claims that women are doing this and that and are better at said things than men. The blatantly false claim that women are "doing it all on their own" and a bunch of other pro-female ideological garbage that would make any real man with a brain throw up.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

This is a truly well-written piece, because instead of the typical man-bashing mode of feminist writers, the author is keenly aware of the actual causes of the Gender Wars - which are primarily economic.

(Excerpt) - "What has actually happened, it seems to me, is that society, far from being feminised, has in fact been made more masculine, as both men and women fight to claim the ground that was once the preserve of men - that of high-flying, well-paid careers and glamorous lifestyles.

The aspirations of today's women are no longer confined to just being wives and mothers - they want (and can have) professional satisfaction as well. No wonder men are feeling threatened and redundant."

I think she is on to something in her idea that what is at the root of the disaffection between men and women is that women have become so much more like men.

The Marriage Strike can be explained in any number of ways: men don't wish to become the prey of gold-diggers who can harvest their assets through dialing 911 and alleging domestic violence; or, more typically by having a couple kids and filing for divorce.

But another thing that is going on between men and women, I would suggest, is that feminism has so compromised femininity that women are no longer especially desirable mates.

The cliche is that assertive women are "bitches...." but the truth is that many of them are. (And why would a man find these females attractive as lifetime companions?)

Marriage used to imply some kind of negotiated partnership. Today it is more of a litigious competition.

As well, it is starting to look like marriage is for poor people who need to combine their assets just to survive.

And creating a stable home, as a sanctuary and safe haven from the economic rat race - that is increasingly just a nostalgic fiction.

And feminism is arguably only a distracting sideshow ...

Overall a decent article, considering it was written by a feminist. But it does seem like there is an undercurrent of "what this has done to women". And she seems not to have any problem at all with single motherhood.

Also she pretends the dominant issue is the economy, as far as the source of the gender wars (give me a break, roy); whereas in reality, the root cause of the problem is mainly her and her brethren. She fails completely to attribute any of the fault to feminism itself.

Besides, there ARE many other ways in which society has become feminized, such as the now-prevalent notion that "feelings are more important than facts" (as Bill Maher pointed out); careers are just one part of the picture.

-ax

"Also she pretends the dominant issue is the economy, as far as the source of the gender wars (give me a break, roy);..."

ax --

the roots of feminism are in Marxism, which is basically about economics -- the economics of class warfare.

One of feminists' main gripes is the so-called "pay-gap" where women "only make 77-cents yadda yadda yadda..."

The entry of women en masse into the workforce destroyed the single wage-earner dad nuclear family, and at the same time deprived most women of the choice of not working outside the home.

Today's economics fuel the Gender Wars because it takes two full-time working spouses to maintain a (barely) middle-class lifestyle.

Feminism is all about providing an economic safety net (via the Nanny State)for women which was formerly a normal part of the nuclear family system.

Feminism is a sub-system of a larger system that requires the subordination of men to multiple forms of authority.

It IS all about economics and please go Google some basic Marx ... you'll like it and it will enhance your perspective.

She clearly devalues the status of the traditional female role:

"My mother - a clever but unfulfilled woman - would never have entered into such a conflict."

"...that led me to start the feminist magazine Spare Rib 30 years ago."

Her hatred of the traditional female role is what motivated her to become a femipig in the first place.

Throughout the article she blames men for their problems, praises women for causing this massive shift all by them selves, and does not acknowledge any of the very real boundaries that are blocking men from taking on other roles besides the slave/workhorse role.

It's just a feminist doing what they do best - blaming everyone else for the problems in the world and taking zero responsibility for the havoc they have wrought upon the world

I agree with much of what you said above. I just don't believe the economy is the main source of any gender war. There is too much other stuff involved..like for example misandry, and the psychology involved, i.e. disdain and contempt for men, partly due to meida portrayals of men as incompetent and evil. There are many facets of feminism which are deleterious to society.

Also feminism is only partly derived from Marxism ("Legalizing Misandry" is very enlightening in that regard). That doesn't make feminism solely an ecomomic force as such. There's lots more to feminism, as mentioned above; the effects on the economy are indirect. For example, the large increase in the number of women entering the workforce, is mainly due to feminist influence. The effects of that on the economy, or of men being displaced, however, are INDIRECT effects of feminism. It's not like feminists set out to change the economy itself as such, or to subordinate males (at least not the early feminists).

Ideological feminists have as a goal, a utopia in which women are completely isolated from men, and where men are essentially unnecessary. That's not the same as subordination of men under women, though you could say mens NEEDS would be totally subordinate to those of women (a condition which some would say, already exists).

Finally, just because two things are related, no matter how closely, doesn't necessarily imply a cause and effect relationship:)

-ax

"Finally, just because two things are related, no matter how closely, doesn't necessarily imply a cause and effect relationship:)"

You are correct.

But just because you cannot prove a cause-and-effect relationship does not mean things are unrelated.

More zen, less strict logic -ax.

Agreed with every word of this comment under the article:

=================================

As long as they don't marry, life is fantastic for men today. There are no signs that they can't compete in the workplace (as your statistics show) and the sexual revolution has certainly made life more fun!

But when men do marry, their choices do tend to be limited to playing the 'provider' role, whereas women often get to choose between that and childcare/home, or a combination. And when men end up divorced, as more than 50% now do, their lives are often simply wrecked.

It's a valid point that men who choose to look after children are mocked by society. But more importantly, they are not protected by law either. On divorce, these men still lose their kids and end up with no career, home, wife, or children.

This means many men are opting out of the whole marriage and family thing altogether. But it's certainly nothing to regret. Life as a single man today is fantastic!

- David Space, London, UK

==================================

----------------------------------------------------
Female feminists are just a human shield disguising the real wrong-doers. If you want to fight with feminism effectively, you must target the root of feminism: MALE DAUGHTER OWNERS.

Good arguement, Ax; but I disagree with this:

"Ideological feminists have as a goal, a utopia in which women are completely isolated from men, and where men are essentially unnecessary. That's not the same as subordination of men under women, though you could say mens NEEDS would be totally subordinate to those of women (a condition which some would say, already exists)."

Given that men and women need to interact for the species to survive; the "ideological feminist goal" you stated must result in the real world as a constant exclusion/inclusion of men in the lives of women; where the rules of engagement within the ideology are defined only by those same ideological feminists. That is subordonation; and as you say, it already exists.

"But just because you cannot prove a cause-and-effect relationship does not mean things are unrelated"

I agree. But you cannot use THAT as a basis for believing that they ARE related:)

-ax

Mainly, artificial insemination, and a never-ending supply of sperm cells. Given that, why would men and women necessarily need to interact for survival of the species?

-ax

ax - Let go of the beads.

Nobody wants them anyway. ;-)

Really appreciated the Kung Fu reference!

"As long as they don't marry, life is fantastic for men today." [nbdspcl]

We all advocate for fathers rights. I hope to become a father myself one day. Bottom line: a wife/mother is necessary to create a functional family. As much as I adimately believe in a fathers involvement, I'm not about to ignore the mothers importance. With that said, marriage is in my future. Might I regret this decision? Statistics suggest I will but there must be some redeeming value. My only fear is the horror of seeing wifes vagina at 70 years old.

............................................................

"Oh the gal I'm to marry
Is a bow-legged sow
I've been soaking' up drink like a sponge"

[Rolling Stones]

Yeah, yeah, that's a behavioral program which worked thousands of years and which will not disappear in just one day. The number of marriages is declining every year, but some people are still following that behavioral program (though there are less ans less of them).

----------------------------------------------------
Single men is the only social group benefited from feminism.

Now bring that kettle over here!!
-ax

Some two crazy old men left so much garbage in this topic, that I urge the keepers of this site to decide if this site benefits from all the garbage they are leaving?

----------------------------------------------------
Single men is the only social group benefited from feminism.

..turned other men into second-class citizens. Feminism is the dependent variable, not the independent one.

Feminism is the byproduct of female greed and narcississm coupled with male chivalry. There are many traditional women that also use men, they just do it with a smile rather than a frown.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

Whats your suggestion in regards to my future? Its obvious my life decisions are not based on your comments. My issues with women are exponential but I'm not ready to completely ignore their value. I should stop writing because some feel I'm nothing more than a feminist. Is their anything more horrific than an MRA that one day wants marriage? Apparently to some, my philosophy is the essence of evil. Relax!

............................................................

"Oh the gal I'm to marry
Is a bow-legged sow
I've been soaking' up drink like a sponge"

[Rolling Stones]

Mr Reality you say chivalry is part of the feminist equation, I would may "misplaced chivalry" is more like it.
Men have been conditioned by such a nonstop wave after wave of women-as-victim agit-prop, that they are foaming at the mouth to be the women's Savior.

most are simply blinded that they are stepping on mens civil rights of equal protection under the law to do so!!

Obviously..since you recognized the Kung Fu reference.
-ax

Mr.R. I appreciate your analysis of the gender wars, but please notice that all of your language regarding men is passive voice -- signifying victimhood.

How is it possible for men to be "used" unless they agree to the bargain?

At some point the zero-sum game that feminism has imposed requires predators and prey, right?

Every man still has a choice.

Mr.R. I appreciate your analysis of the gender wars, but please notice that all of your language regarding men is passive voice -- signifying victimhood.

The above statement is not based on facts.

How is it possible for men to be "used" unless they agree to the bargain?

Misandric court systems, misandric laws, etc.

At some point the zero-sum game that feminism has imposed requires predators and prey, right?

Every man still has a choice.

The only way a man could avoid this game is to not deal with women at all; which is not very realistic. Men are attracted to women and vice versa. Once a man enters into a relationship with a woman -- which will always happen due to biology -- he effectively becomes a second-class citizen whether he agrees to it or not.

Next time I'll make sure to ignore your post. You're dismissed.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

"The only way a man could avoid this game is to not deal with women at all; which is not very realistic."

That is a strange kind of theory from a guy whose handle is Mr. Reality! (No, actually you can play the game if you choose, avoid women if you choose, or try a combination of the two if you choose.)

The "you're dismissed" comment is both arrogant and trivially impolite.

I thought you were promoting ideas all about dialogue and the advancement of the men's movement?

Man -- you and I have never even had an in-depth conversation yet.

Would you like to attempt one?

(PS - Matt I am actually being very restrained in trying to engage a site contributor who I believe might offer some good writing eventually. But if you think I'm wrong, I'm willing to do some time in the box... ;-0 )