|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They finally actually PUBLISHED something that didn't excuse, mitigate, or make fun of how men are being treated in America today.
D-A-M-N !!!!
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First read through this piece, I thought it ended at Page 1. Then I clicked through to Page 2, and discovered these quotes -
"Their wives, working or not, feel compelled to expend every ounce of their physical, emotional and mental energies on the children. As a result, these moms are so worn out, talked out and touched out by the end of the day that the last thing they need, at 10:30 at night, is one last, tenacious "child" who won't go quietly to bed. (Sexless marriages, says Dr. Phil, are an "undeniable epidemic.")"
So, stay-at-home moms are heroic martyrs, and their workaholic indentured servant-hubbies are infantile and childlike, as well as unreasonably demanding sex from their exhausted cupcakes.
"The Stepford men of this year's remake want to be rid of their wives. Real men, however, seem to want the opposite: to trade in the Stepfordesque supermoms their wives have become for the calmer, cooler, more emotionally present women they once knew. Getting the women they married back probably won't be enough to get any real-life worn-out fathers off the couch. But it might give them a push in the right direction."
So, even if their "mom-aholic" emotionally vacant wives were to begin to pay some attention to their hard-working husbands, the couch potatoe males would still be slackers ... needing a "push in the right direction!
This article is the same old feminist screed with a gloss of empathy for men.
Notice there's absolutely no suggestion that women need to change their behavior, or be in any way accountable to their marriage vows.
While it's excellent ammunition for the growing Marriage Strike, I'll pass on this fem-author's book when it comes out...
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Notice there's absolutely no suggestion that women need to change their behavior, or be in any way accountable to their marriage vows."
As I said in my post below, I disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:14 PM June 21st, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"Their wives, working or not, feel compelled to expend every ounce of their physical, emotional and mental energies on the children. As a result, these moms are so worn out, talked out and touched out by the end of the day that the last thing they need, at 10:30 at night, is one last, tenacious "child" who won't go quietly to bed. (Sexless marriages, says Dr. Phil, are an "undeniable epidemic.")"
That's pretty much how I read the article. Women are victims because men are evil....just another spin on the same old crap.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:50 PM June 20th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I'll have to see a whole lot more than this minimalist recognition, that men exist and have issues in family relations, before I'm convinced that this historically gender biased, feminist propoganda mouth piece has discovered the meaning of objectivity in reporting issues that affect men and women.
I'd say, "Keep up the good work," but given the long history of "misandry in print" that this paper has engaged in, I'll just say, "It's about time," and "Don't strain yourself," instead.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:04 PM June 23rd, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Amen to that. The NYT is full of misandry. One article that's only mildly anti-male doesn't make the New York Times much less sexist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay fellas, before you get your hopes up about the NY Times, checkout the omission. Every Mother's Day the Times Magazine goes into a frenzy of maternal deification. It consumes a large portion of the magazine. On Father's Day you usually get some kind of half-hearted recognition--or sometimes negatives. This Father's Day..........nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Not even a blurb. To look at the Magazine you wouldn't know the day existed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:10 PM June 20th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't get all excited, lads!
Read the small print!
It's a woman, flogging her new book called: Perfect Madness MOTHERHOOD in the Age of Anxiety - or something like that.
It's "mom-lit"'s special "Father's Day Edition"
Commercial trash!
Don't get taken in so easily!
You don't really expect anything to change, now, do you?
Not at the NYT!
Or anywhere else, for that matter.
Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:46 AM June 21st, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. The article is really anti-male. It paints a picture of formerly rich men who are incapable of:
1) finding suitble women to mother the kids.
2) unable to find work that compliments their needs
3) so worn out that they can't function at home but they can mysteriously function at work.
4) thinking and are so stupid they think the New York Times is a real newspaper.
This is a bulshit article in a bullshit paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, did anybody notice THIS:
"The Stepford husbands, channeling the bruised egos of the 30 percent of American men who are outearned (and, perhaps, outperformed generally) by their wives, neutralize their mates by having them turned into mindless, man-pleasing robots."
"The authors of "The Bastard on the Couch" write with oh-so-much sweetness and sensitivity of their wives' self-absorption and control-freakishness. 'If I'm a bit lax, Gina is a bit bossy' is one super-polite subtitle in Christopher Russell's essay, 'My List of Chores.'"
Sorry, but I am not entirely convinced either.
Chris
Those who claim to be brutally honest, enjoy the brutality more than the honesty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't the Times' article that's surprising--it's the fact that so many American men bought into the 'non-gender' racket to begin with.
Two generations on, it finally seems to be dawning on the brighter sparks among them that relations between the sexes are more equal for some than others, and a few are even beginning to realize that the 'more-equal' lot are almost entirely female.
It is hardly encouraging that a mere SINGLE article in the NYT since WWII taking up the case for men in the battle of the sexes is seen as an encouraging trend.
The naivete of American men regarding this issue has been remarked upon since the turn of the 19th century, perhaps earlier. Men as gullible as this perhaps deserve the treatment meted out to them. They constitute a dangerously servile element in the population, eager to mould themselves to fit a nanny culture--a kind of perpetual immaturity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't the Times' article that's surprising--it's the fact that so many American men bought into the 'non-gender' racket to begin with.
Yes, it's quite astonishing. And just try and argue with them about it - they'll look at you like you're from Mars.
Men as gullible as this perhaps deserve the treatment meted out to them. They constitute a dangerously servile element in the population, eager to mould themselves to fit a nanny culture--a kind of perpetual immaturity.
In other words, they're still boys. Exactly right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:55 AM June 21st, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
It was everywhere in my family. The men had married successful women a number of years back. Then the women decided that their purpose in life hadn't been fulfilled.
They were all into their late 30's and failed to produce natural kids. Naturally, some damages 12-year-old white American kid was unacceptable.
Solution? Go to Africa and get some 1-year-old black kids! Great idea! There are millions of them because of the sexual promiscuity of the Africans that has led to a massive AIDS epidemic. Why there is none of the red tape. And the adoption (price of the children) process is cheep.
So, there you have it. The mothers TELL (ORDER) their husbands to take up the slack, and the mothers quit their jobs.
When the males (two husbands in this case) pointed out that the women were making more money, the women simply stated that they "knew" the men would work harder and make-up for the lost income gap.
So there we have it. Men are nothing more than wage earners to be consumed by women-n-children. Women are the privileged who get all of the choices in terms of career, quitting their jobs, or being supported by the man. If the men fail then they are not good husbands, and the state steps in to save the mothers with enormous sums of money. Meanwhile, the men are disposed of via the American pseudo-Soviet/communist child support and divorce laws……but that is another issue…..
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the last paragraph of the article, and after I read it two or three times, I felt differently about the article:
"The Stepford men of this year's remake want to be rid of their wives. Real men, however, seem to want the opposite: to trade in the Stepfordesque supermoms their wives have become for the calmer, cooler, more emotionally present women they once knew. Getting the women they married back probably won't be enough to get any real-life worn-out fathers off the couch. But it might give them a push in the right direction."
My take on this is that her manner is a little sarcastic ("...fathers off the couch." We're not on the couch, Sweetie), but her warning is really to women ("Getting the women they married back..."). What I get is that she's attempting to subtley slip the knife in the back of the women she knows who've abandoned the implicit agreement they entered into at the wedding and telling them that it's their own fault that their husbands "fail to meet" because THEY changed the rules of the game, unilaterally and mid-quarter.
Just my $0.02 worth.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
