Trudy Schuett, author of the novel Friends to the End which delves into the taboo subject of domestic violence against men, wrote an essay about the state of gender relations today, and how far we (haven't) come. Trudy outlines the history of the anti-male women's movement, and is not afraid to offer criticism where it is due. As a woman, Trudy's views further validate the need for a restoration of men's rights and dignity. She concludes that trust is the vital aspect missing in most male/female relationships today, and we must change the portrayal of men and divorce on television and the media to restore hope. Click "Read More" below to view her bold and unapologetic essay...

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Men's Rights Forum

by Trudy W. Schuett, dsrtlite@primenet.com

Lately I've been dealing with an avalanche of information relating to men's rights issues. I've been reading everything from scholarly works to online message boards, and I'm finding: there is nothing fair about the way men are being treated by our court systems, governments, and even their wives and mothers. It's almost easier to dump a husband than to get rid of a stray dog who turned up in your yard.

Years ago, when my son was still in school, I thought I was imagining things when I saw mothers of his friends appearing not to love their boys at all. Only, now it seems I was on the right track. Maybe women who got rid of their husbands can't bear to have a man (ugh!) in their house at all, even if they did bring him into the world. So they shut off emotionally at a time when their boys need them more than ever. Sure, they still provide basic subsistence - food, clothing, and shelter - because they have to, but that's all. The kids grow up and get out into the world thinking there's got to be something wrong with them if their moms don't even care.

I can't even imagine how it feels for the adult men who are told, "You don't live here anymore, don't expect to ever see your kids again, and by the way, here's the bill."

What is wrong with women?

It's a complex morass of emotional and legal issues that, as far as I can tell, goes back as far as WWII, when women had to fill the positions in factories and other jobs that were previously held by men. But once all the men came home, and wanted their jobs back, some women went quietly back to their new tract houses and babies while others didn't go quite so quietly. There were adjustments to be made all around. The results of five years of a worldwide culture gone berserk does not go away fast and easy - it lingers, and resentments begin. While most people were busy trying to figure out how this "peacetime" thing should go, some of those women who hadn't gone quietly home when the war ended got noisier and noisier and eventually made themselves heard. These women didn't want to stay home and take care of babies; they'd held jobs and gained respect and they wanted that respect back.

By the mid-60s, with another war simmering in Southeast Asia, the numbers of dissatisfied, unhappy women had grown to thousands. Using the same techniques as the anti-war protesters, women picketed, held sit-ins, and burned their bras. That may well have been the first mistake of the early second-wave feminists. Although the issues weren't the same; the peace movement was against the war, the feminist movement was for equality, somehow the two issues became inextricably entwined in the public consciousness. In those days only men fought wars, so if you were in favor of peace and equality, that meant you had to be anti-male. Even after the war was over, the feminists kept on using the same old protest movement techniques. Calling the movement the fight for equality, they continued to picket, rally, and even riot.

Other issues, such as the abortion issue, domestic violence, even gender-biased language became part of the equality movement whether they belonged there or not. Soon "the Patriarchic Establishment," and the "male-dominated society" were being blamed for practically everything from inequality in the workplace to the heartbreak of psoriasis. Women who had never burned their bras or read so much as a single issue of MS Magazine were becoming aware that everything that was wrong with society had to be the guy's fault. Men didn't do much to defend themselves, perhaps they were unaware that the militant feminist groups were serious about all this. When Gloria Steinem said, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle," too many people laughed without a clue as to what was to come.

The Equal Rights Amendment of the 70s failed miserably because it was so confused with other, unrelated issues. Seen on its own it's fairly benign and has nothing at all to do with unisex toilets or closing private schools. (Those are a couple of the arguments I heard used against it.) It was also, mistakenly, seen as the thing that would make feminism the law of the land. Once the ERA was a dead issue, many felt feminism was also a dead issue, and those bitchy, silly women would go home and find another cause.

Only, they didn't do that. They continued to work on other laws, especially now since some of them had gained a bit of renown and prestige. Their message that there was something fundamentally wrong, something bad about men was quietly finding its way into books and magazines, TV, movies and radio until male-bashing was almost respectable. If you tell somebody something often enough, even if it's not true they'll begin to believe it.

So women's feelings toward men began to change. Not all women, of course, but enough to wreck half the marriages in the country. Because at the same time all this other stuff was happening, the idea of divorce as a solution to a woman's self-esteem problems came creeping in. I don't think anybody knows where that came from, but it's there all right. There is also the idea that somehow divorce benefits the children. I think the notion is that it's better for them to live without Dad than to hear him arguing with Mom. I bet if we asked the kids they'd disagree. I wonder how many little kids go to bed at night not feeling quite safe because it's just them and Mom now.

I wonder how many women fully understand what it is they're giving up in exchange for their freedom. I wonder - do they really know what they're setting themselves and their X2B up for?

On TV and in movies, women get happily divorced from their gorgeous, charming husband and a week or so later they've got a new guy equally as charming and gorgeous. Often there's very little or no distinction between the two guys. Maybe one wears Eddie Bauer and the other wears J.Crew. Mom is validated after finding a high-paying job even though she has no apparent marketable skills. Why she couldn't do this before the divorce is not made clear. Meanwhile the ex-husband either begins openly cavorting with his long-term mistress (the rat) or confesses that he's gay. Everyone lives in lovely, large homes and drives late-model SUVs. When one of their kids gets in trouble in school, Mom immediately phones Dad and they visit the school together, though Dad sometimes brings the slut along. Everybody's so happy it makes ya wanna hurl.

The subliminal message is: divorce is fun; all of the benefits of marriage but you still get to date. They don't have anybody on TV like the divorced people I know, some of whom haven't dated in ten or fifteen years and probably won't. I can't think of anybody I know that had a mistress, either. And nobody I know, married, divorced or otherwise, looks anything remotely like those people on TV.

It sure doesn't look like much fun to me. I've begun to think we've now got a situation where a lot of women neither trust nor care for men at all. They've been told so often by the mass media that men are supposed to be unfaithful, dangerous and stupid while at the same time men are also supposed to be rich, handsome and wise that the girls just don't have a clue anymore. And our culture of immediate gratification precludes them taking the time to find out.

The biggest casualty of the 20th Century was not either of the World Wars or even Vietnam. It was the relationship between men and women. So many of the problems of larger society could be solved if we could all trust each other again. I find it easy to get along with men because I've lived and worked with men all my life. In most any situation, it's been me who's been the odd one out. I have developed a few basic observations that may well be true: Men are equally as complex and perplexing as women are. There is no blanket statement you can make that will apply to all men, all the time. 99% of married men love their wives and want to raise their children. Men have feelings, and they don't have to "be in touch with their feminine side" to express them.

A long time ago, I found an old housekeeping book at a rummage sale. It had been printed somewhere around 1900, and had a lot of things like recipes for floor wax and the directions for cleaning oil lamps and gas fixtures. There was a section on family life, and tucked in among the rules for allowing children to mingle with company and some other things was this statement: "Always treat your husband as an honored guest. His needs are first and foremost, above all others."

Echoes of a gentler time. We've come so far in 100 years - but in the wrong direction.

Trudy W. Schuett is an active supporter of men's rights through the Arizona Father's Rights organization, and the author of Friends to the End, the first-ever novel about domestic violence against men, which can be read at http://hyperpedia.net

NOTICE: This story was migrated from the old software that used to run Mensactivism.org. Unfortunately, user comments did not get included in the migration. However, you may view a copy of the original story, with comments, at the following link:

http://news.mensactivism.org/articles/01/01/29/0232256.shtml