I was so infuriated with the author's "views" that I went to everyone's favorite social media outlet, Facebook, to rant. My friend Becky Edvalson's response to the article reflects perfectly how I feel about Venker's views so I decided to share Becky's insights with all of you. ENJOY:)
NOTE: There is also a clip at the bottom of this post you must watch!
I just read Susan Venker’s article on fox.com. I have many thoughts. First, I'll start with what I agreed with. She points out that there is a problem with women who are angry at men, essentially blaming men for any inequalities that exist. I don't think blame leads to anything productive. It is a natural feeling that needs to be felt and then moved past as quickly as possible. Anger however can be a productive feeling when not anger in the form of blame. Anger at the way things are can help people feel motivated to change things. Also, she's right that fewer men want to get married. Although I feel like she is making an intellectual leap to directly correlate feminism with men's decreased desire to marry.
Now to what I feel like she didn't get right. First of all, characterizing feminism as angry. It's the oldest trick in the book of anti-feminist folks. Second wave feminists (1970s-ish) were pretty angry often (we are currently in 3rd wave feminism that is not angry at men, but seeks for the betterment of societies through the encouragement of equal opportunity for everyone, opportunity that does not depend on which genitals someone was born with). But anger, like I said, is what moves people out of their comfort zones. In the 70s costs were rising faster than income, divorce was increasing and more women needed jobs that provided a living wage so they could help provide or be the main provider. It suddenly became clear to a large group of women that not only were they being denied access to well-paying jobs, but if they did break through into the boys-clubs type of jobs, they were rarely paid the same and often endured sexual harassment, etc. The series Mad Men is quite good at showing women's quandary in the workforce around that time.
Furthermore, I felt she made an erroneous correlation too when she claimed that because women were seeking to have power outside the four walls of their own homes, that was taking away men's power. When I contribute something to society, I don't take away from anyone else, I contribute. The only loss anyone incurs is in their mind. Study after study has shown that when women are treated equally in society, when they are allowed to contribute, there is less crime, there is more social justice, there are fewer cases of domestic violence, rape, etc. Why? Because that society sees women as whole people, just as valuable as men, just as deserving of respect, not an object that is meant to serve men, to please men, to listen and respect men. All those things I listed aren't bad things, but they are bad if a society expects women to only do those things and do none of the following: find her own talents and express them, share her opinions, ask for reciprocity in relationships, ask for fair pay and ways to contribute how she sees fit, for all avenues of opportunity to be equally open to her.
The third fallacy Susan Venker put forth was that feminists want to see the men fail so they can take over their position as top-dogs. Feminism is not about men getting pushed down. I feel just as passionately about the things that are unfair for boys/men--like how anger is the only strong emotion they're allowed to show, how they are shamed for liking “feminine” things, etc. I have two boys. I want everything and more for them. And, I also want everything and more for my girl. Because, the truth is, that my boys and my girl, at the core, are people. Having a penis or a vagina does not matter in what talents they will or won't have or what jobs they should or shouldn’t be allowed to pursue. They are people who happen to have a penis or a vagina. Her final comment with which I disagreed was when she stated that men don’t want to get married anymore because: "women are not women anymore". What does that even mean? Gender is a social construct. Societies decide what is feminine and masculine and we teach children that. Do males tend toward more aggressive behavior and women toward more non-aggressive behavior? Do girls tend to prefer cooperative play and boys more competitive play? Yes. I'm not saying there are no differences. But to say, women are not women anymore, makes no sense. Last time I checked my vagina didn't disappear just because I voted, or because I help provide for our family, or because I' m going back to school, or because I like being a part-time stay at home parent. Feminism is about considering women whole people with a complete capacity to direct their own lives as individual adults. Why does that sound crazy to people? I think it's crazy to think of it any other way! And, what kind of person wants to marry someone they can dominate, rule over, etc? An insecure person. Those men who don't want to get married don't reflect a problem with a movement that tries to empower women, it reflects a problem within themselves--a fear of vulnerability, of sharing a life with an equally strong, empowered, whole person who will give and take. That is a true strong relationship, something priceless and worth devoting eternity to. I remember being at BYU and feeling like I was never going to find anyone who wanted to marry an empowered, confident women. I remember thinking, "maybe I should change so I can find someone." But it never felt like something a person with integrity would do. Then I found John and he was looking for a woman with a voice. And the more we've whittled out sexist ideas (that hurt both of us), we have grown stronger and more in love. When integrated well, feminism strengthens marriage!
-Becky Edvalson
CLIP: Is there a War on Men?
ADSENSE HERE