Q&A: Kathleen Parker Discusses Male Bashing, Fathers, Reproduction

Ms. Parker responds to a question about why it is important to "save the males" --

"Now, obviously, nobody is upset that women are doing well but we have to look at what is happening to the males. And are these women going to have partners in the future who are comparably educated and accomplished with whom to have families?"

This entire interview is about objectifying men as necessary resources to be exploited for the benefit of mothers and children.

There is not a single sentence or idea expressed that men deserve to be considered as fully human beings.

I have lost some respect for Ms. Parker after reading this interview.

roy takes the words out of my mouth. It has literally become a mentality of its own - save the males, so that the women and children may receive their due.

Really what it boils down to is this: Farrell observed that men are treated as "human doings" rather than "human beings". It all links in - wallets with legs; the disposable sex; gynocentrism with respect to how the existence of men can benefit women, but nothing the other way.

-ax

It true, when women or the media speak up for men it is only to say they have some value in respect to what women want. Some in the MM rise to this bate and are all to happy to seek women's approval by being useful to them. Now after a long struggle I have throw off this shackle. I will no longer value my own worth using the yardstick of a woman's approval. I think the true measure of men's freedom is when not only they 'don't give a dam' but are indifferent totally to women and what they do or do not think.

"I have lost some respect for Ms. Parker after reading this interview."

I feel the same way about most supposed females that want to help men.

I don't think you can expect anything less from females, their narcissism is so entrenched they find it nigh on impossible to ever think about the well being of men, it's always got to be about women and what they get.

You're falling into the very trap raised in the article.

"their narcissism is so entrenched"

You're judging the entirity of women. It's exactly as the article said, women are hostile to you, and you are hostile right back.

This woman clearly has several flaws in her arguement, but that's no reason to go gender bashing the entirity of the female population.

Are we doomed to simply re-create these patterns? The balance of sexism has swung from discriminating against women to discriminating against men. Are we simply going to swing it back the other direction?

NO! We need to strive for ACTUAL EQUALITY. And making blatantly sexist remarks like this is NEVER going to achieve that end.

Yes anthony, I too am glad to have these women hit a few singles for us now and then. But it's also crucial to never forget the bottom-line reality, which is that society protects and serves women at the expense of men (that behaviour is in our genes). In fact that is why this woman's manner of speaking does not really surprise me. It is absolutely true across-the-board - women expect men to protect them, and deep down in their psyches they view males as disposable.

It was pointed out well by Esther Vilar: "We should never put men's welfare in the hands of women. Most women will flush men's welfare right down the toilet."

Hmm, as to the subject of dads and men in general being negatively portrayed on tv -- one exception is a favorite tv show of mine, Supernatural. It's excellent and consists of a primarily regular male cast, including a slightly flawed but otherwise loved father. Check it out.

Supernatural is a great show.

If you look there are shows that portray fathers in a positive light.

Regardless, it is the comments that people posted on thestar's site about Parker's interview that bother me the most at this particular moment. So many women there not able to agree that anything can be biased against men or women and would rather continue on with the "blame men because everything our fault and we're the evil patriarchy" strategy. One commenter even carried on about men being the owners of the sexist porn industry. I used to work in the adult business. Women do what they choose and women's studies classes all across America ENCOURAGE them to perpetrate raunch culture because it is "empowering" and eventually bring it to the media. It is all about getting the money and sexual gratification they want, but without any accountability/blame/shame. WS classes even say men have to have porn or else we'll rape, like it is some public service or something. If men hold the highest level positions, then that works out for women because then they can blame the men.

Same is true with politics. Without mostly men being in charge who would feminists have to blame? Who would they turn to for special treatment and laws just for them (ax mentioned men protecting women without even thinking). I also agree with Roy that feminists and probably many women in America wouldn't stick up for men if it didn't work out for them in some way. Men can be stood up for or blamed, either way it doesn't seem to matter and works out to be a lose-lose situation. Must be supernatural forces at work.

Actually, this is one of the few issues, perhaps the only one, where feminists are diametrically opposed within their own movement.

Basically there are two camps (with a couple fine shades between I suppose):

One group says as you'd expect, that pornography exploits women and is an example of men's power over them, and therefore should be outlawed.

However the other group, which is significant in number, says that pornography should continue to be allowed, because it lends itself to women's freedom, empowerment and sexual liberation.

(I think one of the in-between theories is that lesbian pornography should be allowed, but not heterosexual).

Pornography is often discussed alongside prostitution, and rightfully so; and as you might guess there are similar opposed camps as above regarding prostitution. I myself believe that a) it should be legalized; and b)actually it is the prostitute who exploits the man, not the other way around. She receives money for sex and thus takes advantage of his hard-wired behaviour to seek a variety of sexual partners and experiences.

I guess that's off-topic.
-ax

Kind of off topic, ax, but thats OK because I was referring to an off-topic comment posted in article anyway. Whoever posted it was probably a feminist who found this article about male-bashing in the media and figured out a way to reverse it around to women being objectified in the media, which lead to conflating that idea with women being objectified in porn.