And the nominee for Ministry of Truth goes to, you guessed it Fox News. The bullshite truly runs free on this fetid gem of an article featured on Faux News. (ed. sorry folks missed the link on first go around.)Yes, the War has come home. The War on MEN is ON!!!!11!1!!!
This article ranks highly on the coveted “Departure from Reality Scale”, but then again Faux News has never been a stickler for facts, or accuracy or unbiased reporting or…
“The battle of the sexes is alive and well. According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997 – from 28 percent to 37 percent. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent.
Believe it or not, modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don’t.”
As we all know, Pew Research speaks for all men and all women. Go read the report for yourself, drawing the conclusion that women want to marry and men don’t seems hasty and ill-advised as other factors contribute to this statistic and should also be taken into consideration.
“The so-called dearth of good men (read: marriageable men) has been a hot subject in the media as of late.”
The much over-hyped male hysteria needs a media cycle or two to shake out and then, along with Faux News, come plummeting back down to reality.
“Much of the coverage has been in response to the fact that for the first time in history, women have become the majority of the U.S. workforce. They’re also getting most of the college degrees. The problem? This new phenomenon has changed the dance between men and women. “
The dance being women now have to compromise less because they have the economic means to support themselves. What? You mean men will have act less like the entitled patriarchal douche-buckets that we all know and love. Say it ain’t so, Joe.
“During this time, I’ve spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women. And in doing so, I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.
Women aren’t women anymore.”
The author makes the whiny self-exclusion of fail from the gene pool sound like a bad thing.
” To say gender relations have changed dramatically is an understatement. Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically.”
Notice how the sexual revolution tended to be most rewarded when it was all about the free sex and consequence free slap n’tickle and less so for little things like women’s rights, anti-pornography initiatives and tougher rape laws. Sexual revolution indeed.
The dramatic change the author is attempting to misinterpret is the notion that women are full fledged, honest to goodness, people and not there just for their fucking and the birthing. Heady stuff, I know.
“In a nutshell, women are angry.”
Being on the short end of the stick since forever tends to do that to people.
“They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.”
Unknowingly defensive. Wow. Another checkmark in the strong supporter of female autonomy column please. This is the gleaming kernel of corn in this turd of piece. The notion that somehow Women have displaced Men from their lofty status as the rulers of western society. Strangely though, the standards in society are still based on white male preference and white male privilege still remains supreme, but for the first time it has been excised from the notion of “it’s just part of how society works”, thank you very much Feminism.
“Now the men have nowhere to go.”
Except to all the places of power and dominant roles in society. Oh Dear Lard, what about the menz!
“It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry. Heck, men have been to blame since feminists first took to the streets in the 1970s.”
The dynamic of women being treated as people, is definitely at fault.
“But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women’s fault?”
Lolsob *forever*. Those damn women wanting to be treated like people… unbelievable what these women will do, is there no justice in the world?
“You’ll never hear that in the media. All the articles and books (and television programs, for that matter) put women front and center, while men and children sit in the back seat. But after decades of browbeating the American male, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault.”
Riiiight. We definitely have a Gynocracy here now. Did you see all the media adds objectifying men as objects, or all the huge majority of leaders in our societies being women and thus promoting a pro-woman agenda. It is just amazing how anti-men our society has become. The strict rape laws, the violence against women act, the evidence is overwhelming.
“Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family.”
Because whiny entitled men should be our concern. Those damn women now that we’ve taken the boot off their necks…they are starting to compete with us, and we have to treat them like they were people….*eek*.
“Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.”
Naturalistic fallacy combined with the notion that the 1950’s were just absolutely fucking amazing! You would think that men being the take charge and responsibility types that they “are” would not have to blame someone else for all their problems.
“It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.”
Feminism is a hydra with soooo many heads. It spends so much time castrating men and their desires, but yet, it is sexy-times for all. Alarmingly, it all happens at the same time. Feminism must involve some dark sorcery just you menz wait I just haven’t got my tome o’ spells in the mail yet.
“It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life.”
WTF is “male nature” and why does it seem like a likely synonym is douche-canoe? Embracing the subordination of traditional marriage seems a long way from “seeking a balanced life”, but seeking a balanced life sounds a lot better than reaching for the stars as a premier object of the the sex class.
“So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.”
Lol, the role is “game on, dudes your free ride is almost over”. Rise to meet the new higher standard or join the whinging masses(?) of men going their own way and male rights activists. Makes differentiation *much* easier.
“Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.”
Yes you can win by losing!! Awesome. Marriage should be about equality not a dominate and subordinate role, please note that masculine and feminine stand in for said roles. There is no winning for either sex in heading back to traditional roles, not now, not ever.
Let’s all congratulate Fox News for hosting this amazingly progressive work that women everywhere will adore.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
15 comments
February 13, 2013 at 10:57 am
Robert Nielsen
When was this article written? The 1960s? I feel like it should be narrated to a black and white background of a women making dinner while the husband sits reading the newspaper.
LikeLike
February 13, 2013 at 11:06 am
syrbal
You know, it does seem that one could read that as an open admission of some men to be too arrogant/stupid (typical FOX viewer?) to change. Same issue women met in the era of the original women fighting for the vote and free love outside of marriage — women who inspired men like Jung, Rodin, and others; but were labeled mere “muse” characters and abandoned by both men and history.
LikeLike
February 13, 2013 at 11:23 am
john zande
Pure gold!
LikeLike
February 13, 2013 at 12:01 pm
The Arbourist
@Robert Nielsen
Last year.
It is amazing how much ferocity there is in the backlash against the notion that women are people too. Boggling really. This sort of “opinion” piece just makes you sit down and wonder, “Did I just read that?”. I get that often at FN, but this one was exceptional for attraction it generated in my desk for my head.
LikeLike
February 13, 2013 at 12:05 pm
The Arbourist
@Syrbal
I’m thinking that it isn’t about arrogance or stupidity. Rather, implicit comfort with the status quo. I was watching the reboot of Total Recall and thought to myself, “Wow, another heroic dude doing heroically dudely things… why don’t they cast women as main protagonists and make the men the ones in need of rescue.” You’d think with their passion for “finding the right script” the wacky idea of a female hero might have some traction.
LikeLike
February 13, 2013 at 12:06 pm
The Arbourist
@John Zande
Thanks. :)
LikeLike
February 13, 2013 at 12:09 pm
syrbal
Other than the “Aliens” films, you mean? Perhaps it is because male heroics involve so much more slash and splash; whereas female heroics is more about survival and not about body count? Everyone likes status quo if they are comfortable; from my viewing point? Women, even if comfortable, seem more empathetic to the idea that change so OTHERS are comfortable does not necessarily mean loss of one’s own comfort. There seems a belief out there that if others get ‘comfort’ they get it by taking “yours”….this is a huge barrier to change.
LikeLike
February 13, 2013 at 12:16 pm
The Arbourist
@Syrbal
Big fan of some of Aliens series. Would of been nice if they had someone who could write a story in the last couple.
Well said. Portraying the gender stereotypes/roles as a zero sum game benefits those who oppose change and gives them arguments to whip up the troops to circle the wagons and defend their ‘rights’.
LikeLike
February 13, 2013 at 12:34 pm
syrbal
Pretty much. And then, being older and more bitter? I find myself intoning, “Didn’t you ever learn to share? Not even in kindergarden?”
Because holy catcrap, some of the actions I see speak of an attitude of not knowing when you have enough, even with starvation out your kitchen window within view.
LikeLike
February 14, 2013 at 11:09 am
Heinrich
Fox ran something incredibly stupid based on American cultural tropes?
Shocking.
Next thing you know, they will be questioning the science of climate change.
”
You mean men will have act less like the entitled patriarchal douche-buckets that we all know and love.
”
Ouch.
Looks like stereotypes are on 2-for-1…
I’m sure Hallmark carries an appropriate Valentine’s Day card in the “I Love You Very Much Personally, But I Object to Your Gender’s Universal Immunity from Oppression” section. :-)
LikeLike
February 14, 2013 at 2:18 pm
The Arbourist
@Heinrich
Feeling picked on and unfairly categorized?
Good.
LikeLike
February 15, 2013 at 8:32 am
Heinrich
Actually, no.
Thanks for asking.
I take from your response that I am supposed to feel ashamed of my gender because Fox News perpetuates utter stupidity?
Did you happen to notice that Fox’s Suzanne Venker is not an entitled patriarchal douche-bucket?
Good.
LikeLike
February 15, 2013 at 11:19 am
The Arbourist
@Heinrich
Oh okay. It’s hard to tell with comments and motivations. You see, in pointing out the stereotypes present in the piece, I assumed you were going down the old “we already have equality” avenue and were about to start doing the 1 to 1 thing. Given that it is never 1:1 exchange when it comes to men an women we would have had it out from there. Thus, I was avoiding having to explain classes, patriarchy and oppression to yet another person who won’t see it because it is the ‘natural order’ of things and doesn’t have a problem with it (because it is currently working great for them).
If you weren’t going down that particular avenue, then my assumption was incorrect and thus my apologies are warranted.
I try not to look or listen to anything Fox News says, it is better for my psychological well being. However, Fox News is a convenient(?) barometer of the values that elite opinion thinks the public should be endorsing. If FN were merely vapidly mendacious like the rest of the corporate media I would despair less. But FN is not. FN is about selling a fairy tale, a warm and fuzzy ideology, that attempts to meld corporate ideology into the personal lives of its viewers under the guise of “conservative” values. FN is the 1950’s, only without the base of the New Deal; think more along the lines of the Robber Baron Capitalism of the 1900’s as to the ideal notion of what FN is all about.
The above digression was necessary before I could address your main point of whether or not you should feel ashamed of your gender because of what FN does. The retrograde worldview FN perpetuates in this article gets published because there is an audience for it. FN knows its ‘base’ very well and rarely gets out of step with the ideals it promotes. I’ll make a safe bet and say that FN will never do a piece on Patriarchy, other than to deny its existence and sling mud at radical egg-head feminists. FN can make statements like they do in the quoted article because society permits them too. They can advocate for women being less than men because men and women are not standing up and calling them on their bullshite.
If anything,the fact that such egregiously anti-woman statements see the light of day is something to be ashamed of. To admit to the excess of privilege and advantage is but the first step. It is nothing compared to the travails of being in the subordinate class. So a little shame for giving FN the rhetorical space to slam women might be in order.
Women do what they do in order to survive in patriarchal society. Internalizing patriarchal values gives women a modicum of safety in their designated subordinate role.
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 15, 2013 at 12:48 pm
Heinrich
Arbourist:
Thank you for your considered response.
FWIW, we are in complete agreement on the harmfullness of Fox “News” content.
”
To admit to the excess of privilege and advantage is but the first step. It is nothing compared to the travails of being in the subordinate class. So a little shame for giving FN the rhetorical space to slam women might be in order.
”
Personally, I feel no shame whatsoever due to the fact that FN is able to slam women (and men) into the ridiculous 1950’s categories that we both roll our eyes at. I had no part whatsoever in creating FN, so while I am appalled, I am not shamed.
With respect – You would do better to direct your anger at the millions of people (male and female) who happily buy the shit that Fox sells both during and between the commercials.
Also – again with respect – There is no “the” subordinate class. The Venn diagram of victims versus oppressors does not equal the Venn diagram of women versus men. The world contains Margaret Thatchers and Leona Helmsleys, and homeless bipolar men.
”
Women do what they do in order to survive in patriarchal society.
”
And men do what they do in order to perpetuate the patriarchy.
Sigh. If only things were so categorically simple…
If you really believe in gender-equality, then women should not get a free pass for idiocy any more than men should.
Rationalize the Suzanne Venker piece as a profound internalization of patriarchy if it makes you feel better – but that would be to assume that Venker is excruciatingly un-self-aware, simply because she is a woman who doesn’t share your views.
I’d rather go with the simpler explanation – that her piece is fucking stupid and that she knows it.
A great deal of principle gets thrown under the bus due to the fact that people have to eat.
LikeLike
February 16, 2013 at 11:01 am
The Arbourist
@Heinrich
I would have to disagree with your premise. Our societies are class based. Gender roles/expectations are foundational in establishing the dominant/subordinate roles. Explicitly, women are the sex class and thus are judged on how well they perform femininity (subordination, living in Rape Culture, et cetera) vis a vis a society whose normative values are of the masculine (dominant) class.
I was generalizing more to women as a class. The Venker piece is retrograde, anachronistic and fails due to myriad of factors drawn from both our lists.
Agreed.
LikeLike