Here We Go Again

Started by Christiane, Jun 13, 2006, 07:45 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Christiane

Before I launch, I realize I need to stop watching Good Morning America.  

Today's offering was just beyond beyond.  

First, according to my calendar, Father's Day is this coming Sunday.   So where are the segments honoring fathers?   Today, there was a long segment on a recent contest sponsored by Good Housekeeping magazine to find the husband/father who did the most housework in the US and reward him.   The winner is a guy who works full time (and so does his wife), then he comes home and does all the housekeeping and cooking for his wife and 14 month old daughter.   He works 24/7, scrubbing, dusting, everything.   He proudly described his cleaning tips.   Then they gave him and a male soap actor a mock "contest" where the two competed in a timed window washing, rug vacuuming, and pancake flipping.   The soap actor exaggerated his incompetence, while the housecleaning superdad showed off his domestic prowess.  I thought I was going to throw up.   Superdad's pregnant wife was standing by holding their daughter, just beaming about what a hard worker he is.   Good Housekeeping gave him $22,000 of stuff including a plasma TV.   They also talked about the 2 runners up, one of whom works 14 hour days and still does everything else around the house for wife and kids.   This was presented as the ideal to which all men should aspire.   The point was made that these men feel their marriages are better because they work so hard around the house.  Wow, we really need to set the bar just a little higher for dad, don't you think?  

Flash forward through one commercial break to the next segment highlighting Linda Hirshman's book:   Get To Work - A Manifesto For Women.   This lady is the epitome of a condescending, elitist, radical feminazi bitch from hell.   I'm on my fourth cup of coffee so bear with me.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=2067008&page=1

This is pure poison.   What she's saying is that women who are full time homemakers are not realizing their potential, that this job is not sufficient for a full adult life, that they're making themselves dependent.   She says SAHM's do what they do because they enjoy it - not because of any benefit to the children or family.   In other words, SAHM's are inferior to the likes of her because they can't possibly be fulfilling their intellectual potential.   Her arrogance is absolutely breathtaking.

Interestingly, the interviewer was a young woman who has 2 small children, and her husband is the stay at home parent.   Hirshman does not make the point that a man who is a SAHD is somehow stunting his intellectual growth or making himself dependent on his wife.   What a double standard !   When the reporter talked about her particular family's choice, Hirshman kept making the point that this wasn't about any one family's choice, it's a sociological fact that women become dependent and don't realize their full potential if they don't work full time outside the home.   Women need to be in the world of adults, she says.   (I suppose the companionship of other stay at home parents doesn't count, because they're just childish dependents who aren't true adults).

Then Hirshman said, and I'm not kidding, "Where are the fathers?  I'm always skeptical of any choice women make that men can't.   Where are the fathers spending time with the children?"    And she's saying this to a woman whose husband is a stay at home dad.   Unbelievable.

Now - juxtapose these two segments together for just a second and try to find some logic.    The ideal man, according to this reasoning, is someone who works full time outside the home, then spends all his time afterwards doing all the household work.   The kids go to daycare, and mom works full time, then she comes home to bask in her intellectual fulfillment while dad does the drudgery.   He gets a "better marriage" and a plasma TV.  

Where are the fathers in this model?   They sure don't have time to spend with their kids - with both parents working full time and dad doing all the housework besides.   In Hirshman's world, it's wrong for one parent to concentrate on the home front so both parents actually have some time to relax with the kids and each other.   She even goes so far as to say that women shouldn't have more than one child, because women tend to leave the workplace more often after the second child.   I think I hear China calling.

True to Dr. E's prediction, I was struck by a commercial last night.   Just in time for Father's Day.   Maybe some of you saw it.   I don't remember if it was for Craftsman, or TrueValue Hardware (obviously a poor commercial as I can't remember the product), but it jumped from father to father using tools, and singing a silly song about how they don't know what they're doing.   They messed everything up - total baffoons.   The last poor guy cut the power to his house while trying to repair something.  Great way to sell tools.

It's really sad that we've gone from Father Knows Best in this country, to Father Doesn't Know What The Hell He's Doing.

dr e

OMG Christiane!  Nice analysis.  You are turning into an MRA before our very eyes!  Welcome and condolences.  You will see it just about everyplace you look and then when you point it out to others you will be labeled a misogynist.  Welcome to our world.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

contrarymary

Christianne rocks.
quot;I can resist anything but temptation."

 Oscar Wilde

Mr. Bad

Quote from: "Christiane"
Then Hirshman said, and I'm not kidding, "Where are the fathers?  I'm always skeptical of any choice women make that men can't.   Where are the fathers spending time with the children?"    And she's saying this to a woman whose husband is a stay at home dad.   Unbelievable.


This highlights nicely what I've been noting for a long time now:  SImply not supporting feminism isn't good enough.  Far, far too many women are allowed to get off the hook by simply declaring that "I'm not a feminist" yet at the same time do absolutely nothing when confronted head-on with feminist sexism, double-standards and bigotry.  Those women are allowed a pass and at the same time enjoy all the benefits of the institutional sexism that feminism has brough upon us.

I say no more.

In my book it's no longer acceptable to declare oneself as "not a feminist" - it's simply not good enough.  Unless you're an active MRA, and even better an anti-feminist (i.e., anti-sexist) then you're part of the problem.  Period.  

That female interviewer should have been all over Hirshman but instead she gave Hirshman a pass.  Bullshit.  I hope the interviewer's husband serves her cold dogshit for dinner and makes her sleep in the garage for a week.
"Men in teams... got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men's teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements; a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean-spirited to acknowledge."  Camille Paglia

Sir Percy

I have no problem with a chap who keeps his tent clean. Not that I am a paragon. I have a squire. But a chap should tend to his chores even after a hard days Knighting. None of this put your feet up stuff. He should immediately disrobe and get the triferrictetroxide out of his vestment, clean his armour, knocking out the grosser dents with the special hammer, clean his weapons, spend a little time with the whetstone to keep the edges sharp and ready (might be a night call out), washdown and feed the Steed, throw a haunch on the fire for later, peel a few veggies etc. Only then can he sit back with a bevvie. This, my daily routine, is definitly worth a plasma TV and 22 grand. Fat chance though.

But seriously folks, Each to his own. I know of a few houseproud squires and they do well. The social engineering aspect of feminism is a bane at the least. The denigration of both men and women who wish to make their own arrangement and chore-doings is fatuous, oppressive interference. The 'shaming', name-calling tactics - against both men and woman of goodwill going about their lawful occasions - needs to be whacked without mercy. All hail and a bevvie to the first person to take one of the TV harridans to task and eviscerate her/him on camera. Bugger diplomatic niceties.
vil, like misery, is Protean, and never greater than when committed in the name of 'right'. To commit evil when they are convinced they are doing 'good', is one of the greatest of pleasures known to a feminist.

Christiane

Quote
That female interviewer should have been all over Hirshman but instead she gave Hirshman a pass.


Actually, she challenged her multiple times.   Sorry if I didn't make that clear, Mr. Bad.  The interviewer pointed out that there have been zillions of emails sent to GMA about Hirshman's book (apparently she was on before), most violently disagreeing with her.   She showed a couple of the emails on the air, and made the point at least twice that Hirshman's views are "controversial".  She also obviously took personal exception to what Hirshman was saying, citing friends of hers who were SAHM's, and mentioning her husband.  

I took a little heart in that.   So maybe not dogshit for dinner tonight....

But Hirshman countered everything the interviewer pointed out with a wave of her hand, saying individual experiences aren't relevant, and she very arrogantly brushed aside the emails as well.   Typical leftist radical - when reality is inconvenient,  just wave your hand and it will evaporate.  And her tone of voice was sickeningly calm and pleasant, while dripping venom.   I've seen that before too.

typhonblue

Quote from: "Christiane"
Then Hirshman said, and I'm not kidding, "Where are the fathers?  I'm always skeptical of any choice women make that men can't.   Where are the fathers spending time with the children?"    And she's saying this to a woman whose husband is a stay at home dad.   Unbelievable.


She makes a damn good point.

scarbo

Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Christiane"
Then Hirshman said, and I'm not kidding, "Where are the fathers?  I'm always skeptical of any choice women make that men can't.   Where are the fathers spending time with the children?"    And she's saying this to a woman whose husband is a stay at home dad.   Unbelievable.


She makes a damn good point.


So I guess I'll trot out MY anecdote to answer this question.

I was having dinner one night with two good lady friends of mine. One of them is very sensitive about feminism/equality/gender issues. She would be a good one to come here to attempt to argue that women are oppressed, because she believes it. So, naturally, having since read Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power" myself, I thought I'd try out a few of the ideas on her.

We got into quite heated a discussion about a lot of things. But one thing I will remember is this: when I asked her if she would ever consider working and supporting a stay-at-home dad, she said "Never." But she was perfectly OK with the notion of HER staying home and her husband working to support. Since that dinner, she did indeed go on to meet a guy and marry. And guess what? She quit the nearly six-figure job she held at the company I work at ("too stressful", she said), her husband has decided to go to law school AT NIGHT, and they now have a child. Guess who gets to stay home with the daughter? And guess who also works PART TIME at a NON-PROFIT org which supports her hobby?

There you have it, and it's of course no surprise.

TB, show me the number of families where the spouses have both agreed for the wife to work and the husband to stay home with the kids. It's not a large number, I'm willing to bet. And I think I know why.

Christiane

Quote
I have no problem with a chap who keeps his tent clean


Me either, SP.   And I agree with you about the name calling.   Oppressive interference indeed.   I'd love to see Hannity get hold of Hirshman, but I would bet money she lacks the guts.

It really is a shame there aren't more stay at home dads.   I hope that's changing.   Some of it may have to do with the fact that men tend to marry younger women, and the men are further along in their careers when children come along.   But I've never analyzed the trends or statistics, so I don't know.   That was the only part of the interview, tb, where Hirshman said anything I could agree with.   And the fact is, men can make that choice, but it's difficult.   I hope we can get to a point where that choice is equally available.   I think we've a long way to go.

But Hirshman believes both parents should work, and women should have only one child, so all adults stay in the workforce and women can thus achieve intellectual fulfillment.   Who is she to pontificate about what constitutes intellectual fulfillment?  In her view, that's the Holy Grail of existence.   Her argument is a SAHM  (but not a SAHD)  is a victim of dependency and stunted intellectual growth.   That is a crock.

Christiane

Quote
In my book it's no longer acceptable to declare oneself as "not a feminist" - it's simply not good enough. Unless you're an active MRA, and even better an anti-feminist (i.e., anti-sexist) then you're part of the problem. Period.


I've thought about this, Mr. Bad, and I would like to gently disagree with you.   I think the road toward truly seeing injustice is sometimes just that:  a road.   Someone who is not as far along the road as you is not necessarily part of the problem.   Declaring oneself "not a feminist"
might better be viewed as a necessary first step on that road.

If your goal is to garner wider support for your cause, I don't think it's productive to dismiss those whose interest has been piqued, who are beginning to think about issues they didn't notice before.  On the contrary, every person who looks at your issues and declares her/himself "not a feminist" where no such declaration existed before, represents a potential vote in your favor.   And you need more votes.  If the MRM is going to effect real legislative change, you need more votes.   Your enemy is formidable.

Galt

Quote from: "scarbo"
We got into quite heated a discussion about a lot of things. But one thing I will remember is this: when I asked her if she would ever consider working and supporting a stay-at-home dad, she said "Never." But she was perfectly OK with the notion of HER staying home and her husband working to support. Since that dinner, she did indeed go on to meet a guy and marry. And guess what? She quit the nearly six-figure job she held at the company I work at ("too stressful", she said), her husband has decided to go to law school AT NIGHT, and they now have a child. Guess who gets to stay home with the daughter? And guess who also works PART TIME at a NON-PROFIT org which supports her hobby?


The core of it is that most men inherently know that they are most likely not going to get anything in life if they don't get it themselves.  Women have the very real possibility of getting it out of men - sometimes to the tune of millions, without any work (see Heather & Paul) - or getting money by working for it.  Or usually a combination of the two.

But given that situation, and the fact that most women look to marry up, a man knows that he would be destroying his life if he let himself be supported by a woman.  Aside from the shame from society, he wouldn't have the perks of a divorce court on his side if something went wrong, and he wouldn't have the major perk of being able to easily get some other woman to support him (as women can do much more easily with men).

Work can definitely be a source of satisfaction if you are in particular occupations, mostly professions, but even then I notice that almost everyone who wins the lotto quits work. And lots and lots of people are in jobs they hate.

On the bad side, what bothers me is the utter lack of empathy that many or most women have about that - they don't care to understand it, the guy pays and that's that. On the bright side, being forced into that situation acts as a source of motivation to improve yourself and finally land in a place where you really do derive satisfaction out of a job, and where you really start earning well as you get older.

That forces men who may not have liked work when they were younger to go to that effort - as opposed to just taking the easy way out by having someone pay for you - and I would certainly not want to be in the position of an older woman who has no inkling of the real world and has to thus be supported by others via court orders, or using victimhood, or whatever. Dependency would really be a drag.

Christiane

Not to be off topic, but "Here we go again"

Galt, I really do respect your opinions.   Your experience is way different from mine.   That's what makes the world interesting.

Think about this though:   Doesn't it seem reasonable that the SAHM population represents an untapped pool of support for the MRM?   Whether or not you agree that parents of either gender, especially women, should pull themselves out of the workforce to concentrate on hearth and home, so to speak, doesn't it seem logical that these women, and they are almost exclusively women, would support your cause?

Let me put it another way.   Whatever your personal feelings about SAHM's, wouldn't it be tactically advantageous to garner their sympathy, and votes, for the MRM?   For the MRM to truly become mainstream, you'll need much more support from women, and where do you think that's likely to come from?   Conservative intellectuals?   Well, yes, but how many of them are there?  

There are millions of us out here, Galt.   Millions of women who love their men, take pride in their home, manage the family money, work hard and have stayed married.   Show me a SAHM who is a radical feminist, and I'll show you a creature who doesn't exist.    And I'm not talking about Paul and Heather.   I'm talking about real flesh and blood, everyday people.   Your issues are just not on their radar.   Injustice to men is simply not in their experience.    Don't write them off - LOBBY THEM.

SIAM

Excellent post Galt - you sum it up very nicely.  Necessity is not only the mother of invention, it's the father of success. If you have to work, you're more likely to eventually find a job/career/profession you like doing and therefore you get good at it.    When everything is easy, you get complacent and less "sharp".  

Take a trip to one of the emerging 2nd world countries and you'll see what I mean.  People are hungry there - willing to work, learn, improve themselves.

Galt

Quote from: "Christiane"
Not to be off topic, but "Here we go again"

Galt, I really do respect your opinions.   Your experience is way different from mine.   That's what makes the world interesting.

Think about this though:   Doesn't it seem reasonable that the SAHM population represents an untapped pool of support for the MRM?   Whether or not you agree that parents of either gender, especially women, should pull themselves out of the workforce to concentrate on hearth and home, so to speak, doesn't it seem logical that these women, and they are almost exclusively women, would support your cause?

Let me put it another way.   Whatever your personal feelings about SAHM's, wouldn't it be tactically advantageous to garner their sympathy, and votes, for the MRM?   For the MRM to truly become mainstream, you'll need much more support from women, and where do you think that's likely to come from?   Conservative intellectuals?   Well, yes, but how many of them are there?  

There are millions of us out here, Galt.   Millions of women who love their men, take pride in their home, manage the family money, work hard and have stayed married.   Show me a SAHM who is a radical feminist, and I'll show you a creature who doesn't exist.    And I'm not talking about Paul and Heather.   I'm talking about real flesh and blood, everyday people.   Your issues are just not on their radar.   Injustice to men is simply not in their experience.    Don't write them off - LOBBY THEM.


Here are some thoughts on that:

1. There are definitely some stay-at-home feminists.  I've come across them.  Aside from my own anecdotal experiences, there were women on the old Ms. Boards who simultaneously had radical views AND were living off a husband. The poster "Smithie" comes to mind, as an example, if anyone here used to read those boards (the husband was apparently a Microsoft guy).

2. The assumption that the stay-at-home woman is "freeing up the back" of the man earning is not true across the board. There are men living in the basement (there was a recent article about that) and still "providing", but a conflict situation at home is not helping him any. I know men who work overtime so that they don't have to go home, and maybe you know some.

3. It's my personal opinion that the issue of a woman living off a man, when she isn't taking care of small children, IS an issue for men.  A lot of people, maybe most people even here, disagree with me on that. But if a divorce comes about, he's dead meat if the woman hasn't worked. Aside from the moral issue of why exactly you have to pay a woman to be with you. Things are not like they were 100 years ago on a farm, in which the man worked his butt off and the woman had to also work her butt off in the home.

I realize that a lot of my opinion is based on my personal experiences.  Maybe I've seen more bad housewives than other people here or than exist on average. I have some anger after seeing friends completely get used by those types.  I still think that men are laboring under an illusion that may not be true or real when they go into a situation like that, and not seeing reality could also be costly later on, even in the sense of your own self-esteem and peace of mind, not just with regard to money.

Galt

I do know a couple where the man always worked and the wife had never worked outside of the home.  They are now in their 60s (friends of my parents), and they seem to still get along quite well - they have been married since they were both 18 or 20 years old.  That's probably what the people who think differently than me are striving for, and it does exist.

Just to take a different point of view.  LOL

At that point, I can only think that it's a situation I wouldn't personally want - the wife seems to be a bit of a dummy - but they both seem happy and who can knock that.

Go Up