Author: has written 1136 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

29 Responses

  1. Pranav
    Pranav August 24, 2006 at 1:50 pm |

    Everyone’s been throwing in their two cents on this one. I liked Mark remy’s bit this morning

  2. Ginger
    Ginger August 24, 2006 at 2:01 pm |

    All of his “advice” about marrying career women is at heart a manifestation of his fear, and the fear of men like him: that unless he keeps her in a cage, no woman will stay with him. My God, if she finds out there’s a world outside the house, there will be no keeping her at my side! If she has a job, she has contact with other men, and she might cuckold me. If she has money, she has the means to leave me. If she’s invested in her career, she might refuse to get tied down with children, and she’ll not only leave me, she’ll leave me without giving me ownership of her womb. If she works as many hours as I do, she might expect me to do my share around the house.

    It’s interesting to note that these men seem incapable of putting themselves in the woman’s shoes; they don’t consider how *they* would feel if they were removed from the public sphere and kept as subservient, unpaid laborers. All that concerns them is how they feel, what they want, and how they’ll look to other people if their hypothetical wife/slave strays or gains independence.

    I suppose that’s the very definition of privilege, isn’t it?

  3. anon
    anon August 24, 2006 at 2:11 pm |

    You know what really says it all? The entire concept that a woman “should put out.”

    Oh, catch me before I swoon!

    *barf*

  4. Nick Kiddle
    Nick Kiddle August 24, 2006 at 2:19 pm |

    Children should automatically go to the father, and our famous feminist bitches would figure out a way to…

    …kill the abusive jerk and get away with it?

  5. Natalia
    Natalia August 24, 2006 at 2:37 pm |

    Wow, just wow. Nice consolidation. These jerks are all basically saying the same thing.

  6. petitpoussin
    petitpoussin August 24, 2006 at 2:43 pm |

    Right on, zuzu! Fear is the bottom line here – in all of these stories we’ve seen recently, from that triple-threat week of Joe Francis —>Tucker Max —> Nirpal Dhaliwal (or as I like to call him, That Wanker), and now, this week, with Noer. But your fabulous crew here, and so many other feminist bloggers, keep calling ‘bullshit’ when these articles go to print, which keeps the fear where it belongs – with these insecure [long list of expletives], so that hopefully less women buy into it themselves.

    I love the humor that’s surrounded the response to the Forbes story, thus forever disproving that age old joke:
    Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
    A: One. And it’s not funny.

  7. nonwhiteperson
    nonwhiteperson August 24, 2006 at 3:38 pm |

    All of his “advice” about marrying career women is at heart a manifestation of his fear, and the fear of men like him: that unless he keeps her in a cage, no woman will stay with him. My God, if she finds out there’s a world outside the house, there will be no keeping her at my side! If she has a job, she has contact with other men, and she might cuckold me. If she has money, she has the means to leave me.

    It’s interesting to note that these men seem incapable of putting themselves in the woman’s shoes; they don’t consider how *they* would feel if they were removed from the public sphere and kept as subservient, unpaid laborers.

    Marriage and motherhood are a form of slavery to me because many women are still beholden to men to survive financially. People say that women have a choice to marry or have children but World Bank President Barber Conable said at the 1986 meeting of the World Bank and IMF “women do two-thirds of the world’s work…yet they only earn one tenth of the world’s income and own less than one percent of the world’s property.” If women own 1 percent of the world’s wealth (money left over after paying bills to invest in education, a mortgage, etc.), women are practically forced to marry a man and if they have children, she is often beholden to him financially to raise the children.

    http://www.zaadz.com/quotes/Barber_B_Conable_Jr

    http://www.unf.edu/dept/scholar-programs/ospreyjournal2005/makka.pdf (see p. 3)

  8. nonwhiteperson
    nonwhiteperson August 24, 2006 at 3:46 pm |

    A 1981 report to the U.N. Committee on the Status of Women avers that while women represent half the global population and one-third of the paid labor force and are responsible for two-thirds of all working hours, they receive only one-tenth of world income and own less that 1 percent of world property.

    (See Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1988), p.138, by Alison Jaggar)

  9. Lauren
    Lauren August 24, 2006 at 6:35 pm |

    I love Rebecca Traister and her takedown of this article. By god, thank you, Rebecca. One of the things that Hirshman touches on in the Salon response is just how goddamned anti-male this article is. For all the hemming and hawing about how feminism has ruined marriage, what you absolutely cannot sidestep is that the overall premise is how delicate and fragile a man’s health and happiness are, and that women are to blame if their husbands are unhappy. To borrow a quote from Ilyka Damen, it’s like saying that men are delicate orchids that require exact treatment and fine handling, a mindfuck if there ever was one once you put that together with Noer’s belief that men must be dominant, or else.

    Delicate, yet dominant, exotic plants. Fucking christ.

  10. Ginger
    Ginger August 24, 2006 at 7:10 pm |

    Delicate, yet dominant, exotic plants.

    Kind of like Audrey from “Little Shop of Horrors”?

  11. ilyka
    ilyka August 24, 2006 at 7:50 pm |

    LOL at Ginger, and thanks, Lauren, for the mention.

    I can actually take this thread into the stratosphere of blogging fan-wank by tying the dominant-but-delicate mindfuck in with something Amanda said recently:

    . . . we have forced our opponents to at least verbally concede that women should have equality as a basic human right. Whatever they may think about women, anti-feminists have to pay lip service to the idea of women’s rights and stuff their anti-woman arguments into Trojan Horses.

    One of their strategies is to try to rhetorically erase the women they are butting heads with, so they can make the debate about something other than these women and their rights, because they can’t win when using that frame, having already conceded that feminists are right that women are fully human.

    I think Amanda’s nailed it, and it explains dominant-but-delicate perfectly: Having conceded the main argument to feminists, the only tack left to take is the pity-fuck ploy: “Okay OKAY, you win, you’re right, but, gosh, can’t you see how hurt I am? Are you sure winning was really what you wanted? Was it worth causing me all this pain? Did you have to do this to me? Why are you so mean? Are you sick of my whining yet? Won’t you please change your mind?”

    What makes a guy like Noer so much FUN is that he’s trapped himself so perfectly in his own stupid “women were put on Earth to nurture men” beliefs that he’s rendered himself incapable of ever understanding why women enjoy answering all his above questions with “Yes, yes, yes, absolutely (and I wish another woman had done it sooner), because you’re a douchebag, very much yes, and NO.”

  12. Scott Lemieux
    Scott Lemieux August 25, 2006 at 1:13 am |

    “Now, there are several levels of fear represented here. First, there’s the insecurity that a woman with her own interests might grow tired of him”

    Exactly right.

  13. therealUK
    therealUK August 25, 2006 at 4:10 am |

    It’s interesting to note that these men seem incapable of putting themselves in the woman’s shoes; they don’t consider how *they* would feel if they were removed from the public sphere and kept as subservient, unpaid laborers.

    These men refuse to empathise and recognise the value of women’s humanity. What they do instead is project, and that’s where the fear comes from.

    Because if you believe that the only way to feel human is to be crapping on someone lower down the food chain than you, then there’s always a terror that you’ll end up up as the crapped-upon rather than the crappee.

    And specifically when it comes to women, these men are very invested in making sure that the female half of the human race are not allowed to go “too far”, or then they (women) will be the ones running the world with men left emasculated and subservient and the bottom of the heap.

    (apols. if this is a double post. The first attempt seemed to disappear into thin air)

  14. therealUK
    therealUK August 25, 2006 at 4:50 am |

    Another thought, at a slight tangent regarding the responses to the Forbes article, and then the reaction of Forbes themselves.

    Over here, in the UK there are anti-feminist articles like this spewing forth all the time from the reactionary press, lads mags, and even from the more “respectable” media. But, we don’t seem to get the same strength of rebuttal here that is generated in the US. I wouldn’t have expected that Forbes article to have gone down in anything like the same way over here at all.

    It is interesting, that feminist discourse seems to be much stronger and in some ways much more influential in the US than the UK, yet in other ways, in practical issues such as contraception, welfare, housing and universal health care, the UK seems to be more women-friendly.

    Perhaps it’s a class thing. My family and background is poor working class, so maybe I notice some of the small advantages we have here nowadays that a similar woman would not have in the US. But at the same time, most (not all) of the American feminist and politics-lite blogs that I read seem to be coming from people with more academic/professional concerns, concerns which seem to carry more clout.

    That’s an observation, not a judgement btw.

    I think analysis of attitudes and systems and power structures are vital, but somehow I don’t seem to see as much of it coming from the UK, and really I’d like to see more.

  15. julia
    julia August 25, 2006 at 6:09 am |

    Boy, ol’ Nirpal is quite the catch, isn’t he? Real men make money leveraging their more talented wives to get published. If it isn’t quite as much money, a little ritual public humiliation and the occasional highly-publicized sexual betrayal will take the taint off while you spend hers.

    Nowadays having the children go to those who can least afford it, is, well a complete disaster.

    I love this argument, because it recognizes the important and little-mentioned fact that history started when that bitch divorced him. She’s divorcing him because he refuses to do the dishes? Sounds like a terrific reason to let him raise the kids as a single parent, even though she’s the one with experience in that area.

    Here in the real world, the presumption of maternal custody is less than a hundred years old, and its appearance tracked astonishingly closely with the decline and fall of child labor. When children were a financial asset, fathers got them. When they became a financial liability, mothers got them.

    None of this, of course, affect the basic point, which is “my mom should be raising my kids because my ex didn’t worship me as a god like Penthouse Forum and Nirpal say she’s supposed to because I have a penis”

  16. Silver Owl
    Silver Owl August 25, 2006 at 9:25 am |

    I believe fear does play a role, but I think sheer laziness plays an even bigger part in movitation.

    These types of men are just down right lazy. They go out of their way to use psychological manipulation to ensure that women do more while they do less and they want to be congratulated on their laziness.

    “I needed to let her know what she would be missing if we broke up for ever. I gave her a manful bravura performance that night, and at the height of her passion, I asked her: ‘Who’s the boss?’

    The question threw her. Initially she wouldn’t give me a reply, but I enticed it from her. ‘You are,’ she finally gasped. ‘You are!’ I am a very difficult man to be with. I know I have caused my wife great pain and anxiety. But she is an adult, and ultimately it is wholly her choice whether she wants to be with me or not – I cannot be anyone other than myself. ”

    Here’s a guy, that is incredibly lazy, on purpose. Basically he’s saying, he’s too damn lazy to actually handle a respectable relationship so he’s going to use psychological and emotional manipulation based on sex to ensure that his wife accepts his laziness and congratulates him for it.

    All of his actions and plans are about not giving up his laziness. He wants to continue to do and contribute less while getting her to pick up his slack. He wants to be thanked and accepted for his sheer laziness.

  17. Feministe » Rape at The Citadel
    Feministe » Rape at The Citadel August 25, 2006 at 9:47 am |

    [...] n read “Women will destroy the world.” Remember what I wrote yesterday about male fear? This is another example of it. At this point, [...]

  18. julia
    julia August 25, 2006 at 10:04 am |
  19. Nathan Willmore
    Nathan Willmore August 25, 2006 at 10:47 am |

    Background:
    I think of myself as a fairly modern, enlightened man. The Forbes article was obviously misogynist horseshit.

    I want an equal partner in my relationships, not a mommy, not a maid, and not a baby factory.

    I just wanted to add my thoughts on the fear issue:

    You’re absolutely right. This reaction is the male hindbrain reacting in fear to the social changes in the last generation. Despite these changes, there’s still the old image of the man as protector, provider, etc embedded somewhere. I imagine this is cultural, and will change as time goes by, but it’s still there. The cognitive dissonance created by a stong woman in many men is in many ways responsible for the anti-feminist conservative movement.

    Let’s think about this from a male point of view:

    a) Nearly 60 percent of college students are women(http://papers.nber.org/papers/w8964)
    b) Women’s salaries are approaching men’s(yes, there’s still a glass ceiling effect)
    c) Women are exerting more pressure than ever on men as far as selection goes.. Men now have to try to impress (career) women(see: Metrosexual phenomenon), although certainly not as much as the other way around(for now)

    Women are becoming better educated than men, and will at some point earn more more money because of this(societal change is slow.. think 50 years from now).

    Although the mouthbreathers like the author of the Forbes article and his ilk probably arent aware of this consciously, they can feel it in the way society is evolving. And it scares them.

    Hell, I’m man enough[will that get me flamed here? ;)] to admit that it scares me. I’m smart, I’m educated, I’m great in bed… but what does someone who’s not have to offer?

    Men are having to cope for the first time with competing on a level playing field. This fear of being alone, familiar to women, is a new thing for men and it scares them.

  20. bmc90
    bmc90 August 25, 2006 at 11:11 am |

    Nathan, you are not going to get flamed by me. My hope is that familiarity will eventually breed contempt for these ideas, as men go through several generations with wives and mothers who work and earn as much or more than they do. In a way, this reaction always puzzles me because you have to go back to my GREAT grandmothers in my family to find women who did not work for wages, but I guess the professions of Rosie the Riveter (one grandmother installed that newfangled device radar in planes for the war), teacher, pianist, cook, and salesperson were pink collar enough not to be so threatening. Plus men often took control over the wages women earned (and still do), so it just was not as threatening. Control is something we all hunger for, but an equal partner is actually better for men’s long term well being. I.e. if my mom were not at the top of the teacher pay scale when my dad was downsized, we’d have moved to a trailer. Having someone else to fall back on financially, who can share the angst of paying the bills, understands what it is like to have snarky co-workers and a wanker boss, are all good things. And guess what, actually knowing your kids by sharing in their care and knowing how to start the dishwasher are also good things. Helplessness is not sexy, cool, or overall, convenient. Eventually, even the most hard boiled sexists will figure that out, or just be a tree falling in a very empty forest.

  21. August 25, 2006 at 11:16 am |

    [...] e than $30,00 a year, check out these links (and the links they follow) at Boing Boing and Feministe. My fave from the original article is how he v [...]

  22. Nathan Willmore
    Nathan Willmore August 25, 2006 at 11:45 am |

    I wish I could edit my post, I forgot something important.

    Warning: This may be a bit more controversial than my last post.

    Someone brought up “the presumption of maternal custody.” Let’s go through the reproductive issues, and how they relate to the fear thing.

    Male/Female couple. Woman gets pregnant. What happens?

    F: Does not want child
    M: Does not want child
    Result: Abortion

    F: Wants Child
    M: Wants Child
    Result: Child

    F: Does not want child.
    M: Wants child, believes abortion is wrong, whatever
    Result: Abortion

    F: Wants Child
    M: Doesnt want Child.
    Result: Child. Man pays support.

    If the couple has a child and then later splits up, the woman pretty much automatically gets the child and the man pays support.

    I don’t really see how it could be any other way without severely abridging a woman’s right to choose, but it’s still kinda threatening from a male perspective.

    The dipshit who married Liz Jones talks about the power of the female orgasm, and its relation to domination.

    The reverse is also true. The male orgasm can let a woman dominate a man.

    Yet another reason for the fear and loathing response discussed in TFA.

  23. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost August 25, 2006 at 1:44 pm |

    I don’t really see how it could be any other way without severely abridging a woman’s right to choose, but it’s still kinda threatening from a male perspective.

    And yet surprisingly easy to get over.

  24. amaz0n
    amaz0n August 25, 2006 at 3:27 pm |

    Male/Female couple. Woman gets pregnant. What happens? … it’s still kinda threatening from a male perspective.

    But what happened to precipitate the woman “getting” pregnant? Women do not magically become pregnant, and fatherhood is not randomly assigned to the closest dude in the immediate area. Men who do not wish to become fathers would be well advised to consider the myriad birth control options available to them instead of placing the responsibility on their female partner. Men who do wish to have chidren would be well advised to discuss that desire with their partners, in advance. Waiting until pregnancy occurs to let a woman know that, shucks, you’d really like to have a Junior does not behoove a mature adult.

    The only men threatened by women’s access to abortion should be those who believe that contraception and children, and discussions about both, are only the responsibility of women.

    If the couple has a child and then later splits up, the woman pretty much automatically gets the child and the man pays support

    Um, no.

    There is no magic law that says women always get custody. The disparity between men and women in custody situations occurs because so many men do not want custody of, or are too complacent to seek custody of, their children. Men who seek joint custody of their children in divorce situations are likely to get it, unless they are considered unfit in some way.

  25. Nadai
    Nadai August 25, 2006 at 8:54 pm |

    Male/Female couple. Woman gets pregnant. What happens?

    Let’s see …

    They both want a kid: Woman undergoes 9 months of pregnancy and multiple hours of childbirth. Man does not.

    Neither want a kid: Woman undergoes a painful medical procedure. Man does not.

    She wants a kid, he doesn’t: Woman undergoes 9 months of pregnancy and multiple hours of childbirth. Man does not.

    He wants a kid, she doesn’t: Woman undergoes painful medical procedure. Man does not.

    You know, I don’t think that looks all that good from a female perspective, either.

  26. Tally Cola
    Tally Cola August 25, 2006 at 9:00 pm |

    F: Does not want child.
    M: Wants child, believes abortion is wrong, whatever
    Result: Abortion

    Yeah, I’m sure it’s really that simple. There was never ever a woman who *struggled* with the idea of having an abortion, and made a *very difficult* choice about it.

  27. kate
    kate August 25, 2006 at 9:01 pm |

    If the couple has a child and then later splits up, the woman pretty much automatically gets the child and the man pays support.

    Yes, that is controversial and just damn wrong. My father won custody of my brother and I in 1967. He had more money, more time and the tenacity to win at all costs; one of them being that we never knew our mother growing up.

    I am so damn sick and tired of men whining that they don’t get custody of their children when I have yet to find a man who is willing to put in the hard work and effort to ‘get’ his children.

    More often than not, I see men turning a blind eye, going off to start another family or live as a happy bachelor and complain to anyone who will listen how the mother of his children abuses, neglects or mistreats the children he is unwilling to take the effort to fight for.

    What’s even worse about this lie is that the fact remains that women will oft stay with a man who has more financial resources than her specifically because she knows that he will and can wear her out in court until she gives in and gives up the kids or gives up fighting for support.

    Divorce court dockets are full of vengeful, raging men with plenty of resources using their children as their last means to punish and fight it out against their wives. Sadly, many of these men win in the end and the children lose.

    Such illustrates to my observation that most men still see children as nothing more than an extension of their ownership of the wife, once that’s gone, so goes responsibility for the children. When the mother cares for the children and takes all responsibility for them, well then the man should pony up, whether the child was ‘wanted’ has little bearing on its existance and the parent’s responsibility for its welfare.

    I pray for the day when having a family and raising a child no longer have any connection to ownership or domination. That more women are working for and retaining their financial independence into marriage shows some hope.

    The next hope I have is when men like the writer of the Forbes peice cannot even troll the breakroom at Wal-Mart’s to find a mate, as none would have him.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.