[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Sacks Takes Dowd To Task on Male Responsibility For 'Baby Bust'
posted by Nightmist on Thursday April 18, @08:28AM
from the masculinity dept.
Masculinity Syndicated misandrist Maureen Dowd recently wrote that men's "intimidation" by high-powered modern women is the reason for a rise in the childless rate for 35-year-old career women. Apparently, we men are to blame for both baby booms (raging hormones) and baby busts (intimidation by powerful women). In this column, men's issues columnist Glenn Sacks takes Dowd to task on those theories, providing evidence that the career woman's childless rate is a result of her own choices, and that women (like men) cannot have their cake and eat it, too.

<  CDC Makes Recommendations for Preventing Suicide | Finley Files For Divorce From Kitaen After Domestic Violence Incident  >

  
'Sacks Takes Dowd To Task on Male Responsibility For 'Baby Bust'' | Login/Create an Account | 67 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Mensactivism.org is not responsible for them in any way.
Sack's referal to Emotional Abuse (Score:1)
by jaxom on Thursday April 18, @09:49AM EST (#1)
(User #505 Info) http://clix.to/support/
I think Glen is on the right track in the last paragraphs. A big part of the reason men do not go for high power women is the emotional abuse inflicted on men living with high power women.

Dowd, apparently, believes that emotional abuse is good for all men. I think she is dead wrong on that. If I could find her email address I'd tell her what I think of her. Anyone know it????

Mind, there are other big reasons men find high power women to be a nuisance, Glen gets into that. Also, for every man who will not date a high power woman thereare three high power women who will not data lower powered men. Today's "for the men" article from Dowd, does not mention that. She cannot for any reason see a man as a human and a woman as a human with her own bad behavior issues.


the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
dowd replies to backlash (Score:1)
by brad (moc.oohay@leirna) on Thursday April 18, @11:07AM EST (#3)
(User #305 Info) http://www.student.math.uwaterloo.ca/~bj3beatt
her response:
Y? DNA! Q.E.D. By MAUREEN DOWD

Men. Listen up. This one's for you.

I did a column about the article in Time reporting that professional women are repelling the men they're trying to attract — Holly Hunter's lament in "Broadcast News."

Three decades after feminism blossomed in a giddy wave of bra-burning, birth-control pills and unisex clothes, the female ideal of having it all is a risible cliché.

Women moving up still strive to marry up. Men moving up still tend to marry down. The two sexes' going in opposite directions has led to an epidemic of professional women missing out on husbands and kids.

After urging guys not to be leery of high-achieving women, I was swamped with 600 e-males. (And one from a bystander in this struggle-of-the-sexes: "Mary Ellen, a 60-year-old, one-kidneyed, unrepentantly aggressive, abrasive but cheerful horseback-riding lesbian who found true love in the Southwest.")

Some female readers are concerned that men might be engaged in a sinister Stepford plot to get rid of uppity alpha women by refusing to mate with them and pass down their genes to their daughters.

Many men wanted to defend themselves against the charge that their fragile egos resist a challenge.

"For months," writes Yeung-Seu Yoon of Toronto, "I have been sullenly wondering if there are any women out there who have I.Q.'s that actually exceed their body temperature. What I would do to meet a woman who treats her head as more than just a frilly decorative ornament!"

Kevin Johnson from Chicago: "A woman who has qualities that put me in awe is far more likely to make me think she is worth falling for."

Wright Salisbury writes "in praise of brainy women: Shortly after we were married, my wife tearfully confessed that her I.Q., at 178, was 45 points higher than mine, had been salutatorian of her college class, and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

"I was shocked, but divorce was out of the question. It has been terrible to live with, but there have been compensations: 1) Our children are a lot smarter . . . 2) She remembers people's names, places we have visited, and learns foreign languages the way I catch colds.

"Men, don't fear that cute little genius you have your eye on."

One guy sums up the male dilemma with a Joni Mitchell line: "You don't like weak women, you get bored so quick. And you don't like strong women, 'cause they're hip to your tricks."

But there were also many e-mails scorching career women as materialistic, choosy and self-absorbed.

"They want to find somebody who is as much or MORE: good looking, socially skilled and well-off," writes Mike "not Mormon" Dropkin of Sugarhouse, Utah. "What do successful men want? Typically, a good-looking women who is kind."

Steven Greenfield agrees: "I find that most successful women have little respect for a man who does not out-earn them. I am all too frequently made to feel as though I am the sum total of my résumé, which is embarrassingly slim in their eyes."

Anthony Santelli writes about career women in their late 30's: "Despite being older and less beautiful, they are none the wiser and as picky as ever. . . . The very men whom they had rejected are now happily married to women who are less picky. Worst of all, many of these men have gone on to have successful careers and now would meet these women's standards. But it's too late."

Patrick Partridge from Fort Collins, Colo., says, "Men instinctively know that career-focused women will not be as focused on them."

Ray Lewis admits that while smart women fascinate, "I do find them draining at times." He ended a romance with one because "I was worried she wasn't going to look after me as much as I would her."

Adam Rogers, who was unhappily married to two overachievers and undernurturers, observes: "I certainly don't want my home life to reflect the sorry state of American corporate life, where everyone thinks that he/she is so

Read the rest of this comment...

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
It's the choices, stupid. (Score:1)
by nazgul on Thursday April 18, @01:25PM EST (#7)
(User #620 Info)
Dowd is a half-wit to start with, but it should come as no surprise that she faults men for the consequences of her single sisters' choices. Desperately sifting through the rubble of their own consequences, feminists unfailingly seek to find the man at the bottom of it all. The fact that so much emphasis is placed on men's culpability has an ironic flavor. That is, the belief that women, even those who freely make choices that preclude their chances of bearing children, are forever dependent upon the tastes and preclivities of men. I would agree with this sentiment, insofar as we are all dependent upon each other. But that is a mere banality.

The undercurrent that is most influential to feminist thought is, in my view, not misandry per se, as some of us might think. Rather, misandry is the logical consequence of something infinitely more pivotal for feminist thought generally: an out-and-out rejection of personal accountability, so far as it applies to women. This is the primordial soup of misandry, and the kinds of silly rants Ms. Dowd is infamous for. The "theres-always-a-man-at-the-bottom-of-it" prizm of thought is exceedingly condescending towards both sexes, but I find it particularly enslaving for women. I believe that this is what lies at the heart of feminism's failure to reach so many young women's minds today. Paradoxically, most enterprising young women have no desire to indulge in the idea that their every thought, word, and circumstance is dictated by the whims of some ghostly masculine consciousness that they can neither afford to accept nor fully escape. Women do have choices, and while none of us is absolutely free of the madates of chance and historicl circumstance, true freedom comes from relishing both the decisions we make and the consequences that follow. Dowd is to be ignored by any thinking person.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Glenn Enguaging in Women Bashing? Hummmm. (Score:2, Interesting)
by warble (activistwarble@yahoo.com) on Thursday April 18, @03:38PM EST (#10)
(User #643 Info)
First, I should point out that I believe this article was well written. I further believe that his criticisms are for the most part valid. Glenn is right to point out that when women make choices, they should accept responsibility for the consequences. They should stop blaming men.

Nevertheless, recently Glenn attacked the NCFM and belittled this group to the point that they became little more than WB's, and I believe he was unjustified in the attack. Further, I have read the response from the editor of Transitions who was rightly outraged at Glenn's attack. In effect, Glenn painted the NCFM and the Transitions Editor as little more than a group of radicals and left leaning activist who are critical of women.

Glenn even went so far as to publish a list of characteristics that he desires to be used as a yardstick (I believe unfairly) to judge all members of the men's movement. Let's take a look at a one of his rules and see how it applies to Glenn's critical rebuttal against Dowd.

Glenn writes in his rules:

"Characteristic #1: The woman-basher believes that all women, or virtually all women, are the problem."

Now let's examine his reply to Dowd. Glenn writes:

"Reason #1: Women often do not adjust their preferences in a mate to their career goals.

High-powered career women need men who will support their careers by scaling back their careers to become the children's primary caregivers or even househusbands.....Yet, paradoxically, women rarely choose these men as mates. "

Clearly, Glenn is violating characteristic number one. Glenn does this by generalizing that women fail to adjust their expectations of men. Glenn is engaging in blaming women as a group. In this way, he violates his dogma that WB’s are identified by their practice of blaming "...virtually all women..."

By contrast, I have only one rule for identifying a women basher. Being critical of woman as a group does not make a person a WB. I ask one simple question to determine if a person is a WB. Does this statement that a person is making have the effect of lowering the relative intrinsic worth of a group? If the answer is yes then that person is engaging in bashing and some form of bigotry. If the answer is no then the person is just probably fairly criticizing the person. So you see, we don't need Glenn's complex set of rules to determine if a person is a WB.

Perhaps Glenn should abandon his rules of bashing and just focus on issues that affect men. Leave the WB’s (and other bigots) alone and let them suffer their own fate. I believe Glenn would do well to embrace political support for the men's movement from whatever corner while legitimately condemning bigotry. The men’s movement needs all the help it can get. That includes the more radical and critical elements. I really believe the public is intelligent enough to filter out the WB's on their own without his guidance and his moral rules of conduct that even he apparently violates.

Warble.


[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Christine Stolba is Cute (Score:1)
by Dan-Lynch on Thursday April 18, @07:43PM EST (#24)
(User #722 Info)
If anyone can hook me up with Christine I would be very greatful. She is sexy, intelligent, extremely gorgeous, beautiful, did I say sexy? She is a high power girl whose resume' kills mine for sure. My number is 519 757 0907, call me. Im into long walks on the beach
Dan Lynch
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Maybe Men Like Women Who Are Easy to Get (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on Friday April 19, @04:19PM EST (#55)

I have a theory as to why many successful men whom these women would regard as eligible may not be interested in them. They may be seeking easy maintenance women, and, most importantly, less successful women approach these men, make themselves available to them, and/or express interest.

In other words, one factor that contributes to the alleged loneliness of successful women is that the men they are attracted to are pulled out of the market. I think it's perfectly understandable why successful professional men might settle for women with mere bachelor's and associate's degrees. After having suffered numerous rejections in high school and college, now many good-looking women with at least average intelligence regard them as gods because of their income potential, and perceived intelligence, rationality, and stability.

From the men's perspective, why invest effort attracting successful women who are hard to please and who might be high maintenance when these other pretty decent women are pursuing you? How nice it must be to relax a bit after having spent one's teens and early twenties chasing and pandering to women who thought they were above you while you worked to pursue an advanced degree. It must be nice to be wanted and desired for once and to feel you actually have choices.

So why not just take the path of least resistance? After all, romance should be relaxing.

What the successful women who are experiencing rejection and loneliness (on a level similar to that felt by young men) for the first time need to do is to get off their high horses. They need to actively approach men, clearly indicate interest, and make themselves available. That probably seems degrading--approaching men first, asking them out, and risking rejection by letting them know they are available. All of the men they want to attract are more than used to doing that in their pursuit of women, so maybe now these successful professional women will relate better.

Also, I think men want to feel needed and wanted. They want to know that they can relax, be themselves, and not have to worry that every word they say could be the relationship's last. Also, what happens if you lose your job? Who is more likely to stick around during bouts of unemployment--the successful professional woman with high standards or the average woman who can relate to your struggle and who thinks that your personality alone is a good deal?

I admit that I find the situation rather amusing. In my early twenties I suffered a tremendous amount of rejection from women (for good reasons, though). Now that I am on the verge of becoming a high income professional, presumably I could attract women with bachelor's degrees without too much difficulty. I think back to how I had no sexual value for women in general when I was in my early twenties and now many of the same women who rejected me might be having their own difficulties now.

Maybe they'll have to learn to do what I did--be agressive, actively seek men, place personal ads. I'm smirking with the thought that perhaps there is justice in this world.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
True Beauty (Score:2)
by Thomas on Tuesday April 23, @07:25PM EST (#67)
(User #280 Info)
This discussion of beautiful women reminds me of the final lines in John Keats' Ode on a Grecian Urn:
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty -- that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

How true it is of the fine women we've mentioned (and so many more).
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]